The Instigator
WillRiley
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
S.Weekes
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/24/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 762 times Debate No: 65755
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

WillRiley

Con

First round is acceptance. To clarify, this is the opinion you will be arguing against;
I believe that the draft should never be used in cases of foreign wars. (Wars not happening within the home-country) We will not be allowed to use an invasion scenario or civil war scenario.
S.Weekes

Pro

I accept the honourable gentlemen's challenge and look forward to a fast paced, enlightening debate.
Debate Round No. 1
WillRiley

Con

The Draft is one of the most immoral practices used by our nations. Essentially, the draft is taking away someone's family member to fight, and possibly die, in a cause they may not even believe in. You may say it is patriotic, but why force people to be patriotic? Wouldn't the real patriots be the ones who volunteered to fight? Also, the very concept of "replenishing" the military is because the people in the military are dying. The Draft is just flat out wrong.
S.Weekes

Pro

You say the draft is immoral. There have been two instances where conscription has been enacted in my country, the United Kingdom. Britain introduced conscription for the first time in 1916 (halfway through World War I) and abolished it in 1920, and reintroduced it again in 1939 on the outbreak of World War II. It remained in force until 1960. I'll admit that yes, both times, many people died but I ask the honourable gentlemen one question: How many men, women, children, babies, Hebrews, disabled people and homosexual people would have died if Hitler was simply allowed to goosestep into my nation?

"All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing" - Edmund Burke PC, Statesman.

"a cause they may not even believe in" Say, have you ever heard of a little thing called Conscientious Objection? Why, I'll explain it to you: There's a little group called the United Nations General Assembly, it's basically a large collection of nations in which they meet and set rules for each other, for the greater good. They wrote a little rulebook called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and section 18 of that rulebook states: "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance." I can tell you know that this extends to the rejection of military service. If such a Conscription were enacted both you and I are perfectly allowed, without fear of persecution, to object. A lot of people did during the Second World War both in your nation and mine, these people were put to work in other jobs related to the military.

"'replenishing' the military is because the people in the military are dying" Now sir, you and I both know that that is not what conscription is. Conscription is the compulsory but objectionable enlistment of every fit and able person into or around the military. I refer you to my earlier point: "How many men, women, children, babies, Hebrews, disabled people and homosexual people would have died if Hitler was simply allowed to goosestep into my nation?"
Debate Round No. 2
WillRiley

Con

You make a good case, however, you used a scenario that involves invasion. As with my rules, which were clearly posted, you are not allowed to speak of invasion, as with that situation, I myself can understand the draft. This is the main part of your argument which is not allowed- "How many men, women, children, babies, Hebrews, disabled people and homosexual people would have died if Hitler was simply allowed to goosestep into my nation?" However, I ask that the voters ignore my opponents transgression so long as he dose not do it again.

Now, onto my argument-
There are several things wrong with the Conscientious Objector status-
There are many reasons why some people won't seek "Conscientious Objector" (CO) status:

Accepting CO status makes you part of the military system. The military gives COs special status inside the military to keep them away from ways of resisting that could actually stop the draft. By accepting CO status you acknowledge the government's right to draft you and judge your conscience.

CO status isn't available equally to all of us. Poor people, blacks, Hispanics, and anyone who doesn't belong to a Christian peace church has a much harder time getting CO status than educated, wealthy, white Christian pacifists.

Every time someone is deferred as a CO, someone else is drafted to fight in his place. (The Selective Service plans to send out 10 induction notices for every soldier they want.)

Preparing your CO claim doesn't help prevent war. Protesting the draft while cooperating with it doesn't accomplish much.

While I understand that in some scenarios, such as invasion or civil war, my point is specifically targeting foreign wars. A perfect example of a war where the draft was used was Vietnam. The Vietnam War was an unnecessary, costly, and deadly war. A lot of people still ended up going to war who didn't want to. Often, especially these days, there are wars against enemies that pose almost no threat to the home country. Vietnam wasn't going to invade the United States. There were around 58,000 deaths in the United States military. Another 75,000 were severely disabled. Read these two paragraphs from Wikipedia-
"Rummel estimated that American forces committed around 5,500 democidal killings between 1960 and 1972, from a range of between 4,000 and 10,000. Estimates for the number of North Vietnamese civilian deaths resulting from US bombing range from 50,000-65,000. Although information is sparse, American bombing in Cambodia is estimated to have killed between 40,000 and 150,000 civilians and combatants.
18.2 million gallons of Agent Orange (Dioxin) was sprayed by the U.S. military over more than 10% of Southern Vietnam, as part of the U.S. herbicidal warfare program, Operation Ranch Hand, during the Vietnam War from 1961 to 1971. Vietnam's government claimed that 400,000 people were killed or maimed as a result of after effects, and that 500,000 children were born with birth defects."
The point is, people were forced, sometimes into committing atrocities, and many haven't got over it yet.
According to a recent LA times article, 11% of Vietnam Veterans still have PTSD.

1/3 of the people in Vietnam were drafted. One in three. Do you really think that those people deserved to be put through that, many with lasting effects? The draft is just wrong.

http://www.hawaii.edu...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://tuoitrenews.vn...
S.Weekes

Pro

You said we were were not allowed to use an invasion scenario, I merely mentioned the threat of one which is and has been omnipresent throughout all of national history. You also have a strange view that every single person in the military kills and is killed. There are plenty of occupations within the modern military that do not involve the holding of a weapon such as catering, cleaning, surveillance, logistics etc. The fact of the matter is: being a member of the armed forces does not equate to being a soldier, or dyeing.

"CO status isn't available equally to all of us. Poor people, blacks, Hispanics, and anyone who doesn't belong to a Christian peace church has a much harder time getting CO status than educated, wealthy, white Christian pacifists"
The very article of declaration of human rights which I mentioned earlier states that:"Everyone has the right..."

The truth of the matter is, in instances were your freedom, your safety, your very way of life are under threat you can and will be expected to stand up for the aforementioned luxuries. Of course, standing up doesn't always mean picking up a gun. War isn't just men killing each other.
Debate Round No. 3
WillRiley

Con

The point is, war, more often than not, is immoral. Forcing people to fight in a war is immoral. Suppose they are not actually killing people. They are somehow helping other people kill people. And many times, the people on the other side don't want to fight either. When you are drafted, you are forced into becoming the expendable tool of someone more powerful than you, an their political agenda.
Also, I will say that World War II should not be allowed for you to use. The Battle of Britain happened within British airspace, and therefor within the home country.

"The truth of the matter is, in instances were your freedom, your safety, your very way of life are under threat you can and will be expected to stand up for the aforementioned luxuries. Of course, standing up doesn't always mean picking up a gun. War isn't just men killing each other."
So, what about Vietnam? I talked specifically about Vietnam, and got almost no response. That was the last time the draft was used in my country. No Americans had their freedom, or safety, or way of lives threatened, and yet we went to war, and used the draft too.
S.Weekes

Pro

Sir, you are confusing Conscription which is a legal form of assembling an army with Military Slavery. The latter is true compulsion wherein people are genuinely forced to fight. Conscription is completely different. Conscription is the last line of defence for freedom. I understand what your saying. Why are our brave men and women travelling half way across the world in the name of defence? I'll tell you why: If we don't fight those who seek to destroy us over there, they'll fight us over here and that is a simple as it gets. More lives would be lost if we were fighting Al Qaida in the streets of Britain or on the roads of America.

"The point is, war, more often than not, is immoral."
Let's look at who we are at war with at the moment:
ISIL: Seeks to convert all non-Muslims to Islam. Those who don't get beheaded, blow up and shot. That sounds very immoral to me. The truth is yes, more often than not, war is immoral but equally it is not. There are always two sides to a fight. In the Second World War it was Evil Vs. Good. In the Cold War, Capitalism Vs. Communism, In the Iraq war it was Democracy Vs. Despotism. If every country were immoral then your statement would be true but it is incomplete. The complete statement? The point is, war, more often than not is immoral. Thankfully the morally good go to war to change that.

"They are somehow helping other people kill people"
The following is an exert from the diary of a conscientious objector: "While at the arsenal, I volunteered for duty in the first aid post, which led to me taking a first aid course with the local St John Ambulance Brigade." This wasn't a one off many CO's worked in medicine: "Ron decided to volunteer at the hospital, so joined me on the nightly vigil in the Casualty Department. I had already seen a few gruesome sights amongst the casualties who had been brought in. When the first ones arrived when Ron was there he was a bit apprehensive and tended to keep in the background. On one occasion he asked me if he could see one of the men who was injured, so I lifted the blanket covering the casualty and showed him the deep wound which had removed a portion of the man"s chest. He went a bit green, but as time went on, he too became used to dealing with such injuries." As you can see. Not every soldiers job is to kill and not ever CO's job is to allow the soldier to kill.

"So, what about Vietnam?"
I can't speak for your elected government, neither do I have much knowledge about the Vietnam but I can say this I've mentioned two instances in which a force of evil with nothing but the sole goal of the extermination of a particular group be it non-Aryans or non-Muslims challenged the world and the moral people, the brave men and women responded. The risks were weighed the outcomes contemplated and the act of conscription was enabled. Had it not been enabled. The deaths of those brave men and women would have been far outweighed by the deaths.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Extend the debating period to three days and I shall accept.
No votes have been placed for this debate.