The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

The US Should Enforce a Mandatory Military Service Law, Similar to Israel.

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Certified has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/7/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 342 times Debate No: 100671
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




I will be taking the pro stance on this one, and the opponent will be delegated as con.

Round 1 - Opponent may make opening argument
Round 2 - Argument
Round 3 - Argument
Round 4 - Rebuttals
Round 5 - Opponent will use this round for a brief summary ONLY, and pro will be allowed to continue and summarize argument, for an equal distribution of speaking time.


Enforce - (verb) Compel observance of or compliance with (a law, rule, or obligation)

Mandatory - (adjective) Required by law or rules; compulsory.

Military - (noun) The armed forces of a country.

Service - (noun) The action of helping or doing work for someone.

Please, no trolling or offensive language. I am looking for a serious argument.



I believe that there should not be a mandatory military service law similar to the one in Israel.
Let's start by stating the obvious: The law in Israel is discriminatory against Arabs. Arabs are not conscripted into the army, and this would need to be fixed if a law like this were to be implemented. People who are conscripted are usually unable to pursue higher education, and although some join the army for free education and similar benefits, I doubt a conscription law would allow this, beside if we decided to implement something similar to the Talpiot program, which is only for the highest achieving students and would not let others get a college degree.
This seems like it would be similar to the draft, but on a larger scale, which would bring back so-called "Draft Dodging," which was a very common occurrence during the Vietnam war, and would cause the population of the US to take a small bottleneck. Another way to dodge being conscripted is doing drugs, which would cause many people to start using drugs such as Marijuana and Cocaine, which would degrade society for obvious reasons.
Finally, Israel is following in the US and Europe's footsteps by trying to copy how they ended drafting. Draft-dodging is at an all time high in Israel, as well as budgetary reasons calling for its closure.
I look forward to seeing my opponent's justification of his side of the story.
Debate Round No. 1


I thank my opponent for a quick response.

My arguments will be divided into five separate categories, so bear with me.

Argument 1: Veteran Populations are Subject to Statistically Lower Rates of Crime.

According to the BJS (Department of Justice), veteran populations on a whole are subject to statistically lower rates of crime than almost any other community, in particular males. By comparison, incarcerations per 10k were nearly double that of veterans among civilians (630:1390), and veterans on average held much shorter criminal records. Furthermore, less than half of convicted vets reported prior drug use, compared to civilian groups pushing upwards of 60%. And on average convicted vets held higher educations than other criminals.


Argument 2: Values.

One of the staple goals of any fighting force is to promote leadership and cooperation among troops. This is exemplified not only in basic courses, but in officer training as well. Furthermore, values such as empathy, honor, and respect are instilled into the fighting forces on a daily basis. Given this, I believe mandatory service will help promote a more cohesive national identity.


Argument 3: Valuable Skill Set.

Troops trained in skills such as GIS (Global Information Systems), communications, engineering, mechanics, and intelligence are often sought after by respective agencies and corporations for their skill sets. Even combat personnel are likely to go into private security firms and manual labor industries. Overall, even the least specialized troops have numerous practical uses here in the private sector.

Argument 4: Strong Standing Military.

Times are changing. And given the recent funding cuts and reduction in size of the armed forces, at our current rate, we are destined to fall behind global competitors such as China in areas such as innovation and standing size. In order to have the influence we would like to have to sway global events in our favor, we need to have a large and well armed military. The amount a new recruits surging into the forces inevitably would bolster the size, and in accordance the funding given.

Argument 5: Military Inventions

The military has been consistently been responsible or heavily involved in some of the major inventions of recent ages, such as computers, satellites, rocketry, and other fields applicable into daily life. Many of these directly impact and improve the modern quality of life. With the new staffing provided by conscription and funding, how many more innovations would stem out of this? Some examples are GPS tech, the EpiPen, the pioneering of the internet, radio communications, among others.


As for draft dodging, there need to incentives provided for completion of this service. This could range from small benefits in healthcare and insurance, to other forms of compensation. Regarding higher education, students who attend college would be allowed to delay their term until completion. This would help staff officers and other more qualified troops. Given their higher education and field experience in the military (These people would be applied in areas relevant to their field of expertise) they would be much more valuable in the work force. As for those who were not able to meet the standards, they would not be forced to continue trying, but would be exempt from benefits after completion. They would fill the lower and necessary echelons of the work force.

And I absolutely agree, there cannot be discrimination within this process.

My intent with this process is not to go out and conquer the world. My main concern is the enrichment of the American people with essential skills and values, as well as to increase the capability of our military to fight for and defend our country.

Danka Schoen and good luck.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by RC-9282 1 year ago
I suppose It is a little bit informal. However the rules stand.
Posted by QueenDaisy 1 year ago
I feel pro should make an argument first. As is the case in any debate, the default position is the status quo; we should side with the idea that the US should not enforce a mandatory military service law (because it doesn't yet do so) until an argument is presented to the contrary.
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.