United States Selective Service System
Rules, questions/clarifications by pro, and acceptance.
Con responds to questions by pro about rules, pro presents first argument.
Con presents first argument, pro gives counter arguments.
Con gives counterarguments, pro gives closing remarks.
Con gives closing remarks, pro does not give another argument because they were given an extra round, as because they are pro, they went first.
I have a things before I start.
1. I am very uneducated in the category of debate, so my opponent will already have an upper hand. I would like to know what the Selective Service System entails. As in, what age are we talking here for the draft? Male or Female or both? And what exactly are all the details I need to know concerning the US Selective Service System?
2. What exactly are you against?
I look forward to this debate and becoming educated on this subject!
Best of skill to you con!
I thank pro for accepting this debate, and the fact that clarifications are necessary is exactly why I left one round for clarifications in the rules. You, as pro, will be defending the United State's current selective service policy. Our current policy is that all male immigrants and citizens, with few exceptions for disabilities and other reasons, between the ages of 18 and 25 must register for the Selective Service System. This is to ensure that if a military draft were to take place (although one has not taken place since the 1970's), we would have a directory of people to deploy. Here is their website: https://www.sss.gov...
I sent you the think to this debate because generally conservatives back this policy, and you label yourself a conservative. Feel free to take as long as you can to compile information with this subject, and I hope you enjoy debating this with me! Thank you for accepting.
Well. I am very excited to dig deeper into this, and my opponent is correct. I am a conservative and my opponent is also right in saying that most conservatives take the side that a draft is a ncecesarry approach to battle.
I will state why I believe that a United States Selective Service System is a good system.
1. By moving to the United States, we are submitting ourselves to authority.
Before I move on to say whether this is a good system or not, we must teach ourselves that we, as American citizens, must submit to governmental authority. We believe that unless whatever the government is doing is unconstitutional. The US Selective Service System has been set up ever since 1940 by President Roosevelt. It never has been deemed unconstitutional due to the fact that it was seen as an excellent system. We, today, still enforce this system, and it is our job, as Americans, to embrace it unless we know with absolute certainty that it is wrong or oppressive.
2. It is an honor to fight for one's country... Especially America.
We must now see that it is indeed an honor to fight for a country... Especially for Americans. We live in a country so full of freedom that people across the globe wish to even see our borders. We live in the land of opportunity and the home of the brave. And it is that fact that I wish to point out. "Home of the Brave". Men are very weak now-a-days and by being drafted, it calls to their inner bravery and manly spirit. To have that constant sense of the possibility of being drafted fresh in the mind of young men adds a certain dignity and presence to their lives that would not be there if we did not have the draft.
3. It gives us a stronger advantage over our enemies.
When evils, such as ISIS, appear to threaten our country, it is imperative to have a military, and our military does not have as much power as they would against a force that crafty with what they have now, than what they would have with a draft.
I am a libertarian, a constitutionalist, and a believer in civil liberties. Our current Selective Service System violates libertarian values, the constitution, and general civil liberties. Alternatives are impossible for various reasons, and I would propose that the solution would be to not have any sort of draft. Fighting in the military should be volunteer endeavor. People in the military should be paid heavily for their sacrifice, but having a complete volunteer system forces the nation to only go to war when enough people from the population feel the calling to sacrifice their lives. Forced military service in general is immoral, and I will get to that later. Our Selective Service System is not a good policy.
It’s not constitutional - but making the changes to it to make it constitutional would be problematic
It is safe to say that the United States Constitution is one of the greatest documents in the history of mankind. I, as an American who is proud of my country, am allowed to have that opinion. In the Constitution, we have the fourteenth amendment. Section I of this amendment says this:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” (1)
You may ask: “What does this have to do with the Selective Service System”? That is a great question. The Selective Service System only applies to men. Only men can be placed in the draft. If you are a man who refuses to register, you may be subject to hefty fines up to $250,000 or imprisonment or both (2). Also, your right to vote may be removed depending on the legal situation of your state. Because the draft only applies to men, this policy violates the concept of being equal under the law. A woman can vote just because she has a vagina, but because a man doesn’t have a vagina, he must theoretically register for the draft. If he doesn’t want to register for the draft, and if he doesn’t want to risk going to war, he can have his right to vote taken away. That is not equal protection under the law because a woman gets the right to vote just because she has biological features a man doesn’t have.
You could say the solution to this problem of equality under the law is to force women into the draft system, but that would be illogical. Women are often biologically less capable in the field of battle than men, and this isn’t putting down women. There are women who are just as capable physically, and the vetting process for the military should be skill based rather than a social experiment. Therefore, the only logical solution is to abolish the Selective Service System and any potential draft because there’s no fair way to do it.
The idea of a draft is immoral
Let’s take out the woman and man dynamic for a moment, and let’s analyze this from a moral perspective. The government forces people to sign up for Selective Service System. If you resist and don’t sign up, you risk prison. If you use self-defence and resist prison, you run the risk of being shot at. Therefore, the government is technically using violence to force you into the military. Some people in the United States find killing wrong on any circumstance, I am not one of them, but forcing people into the military can violate people’s religious liberty as well. And once again, the government is technically using violence and force to impose this. This is immoral of our government in my mind.
My opponent is much more educated in this area than I, and I applaud him for that. I see exactly what his point is and he has laid it out in a very well manner.
My response to him is this:
Even if... Even if the draft violated the Constitution... The debate here is whether the US Selective Service is a GOOD system. The argument was never if it was constitutional or not.
By using this foundation... Then it becomes more subjective.
As a conservative, I believe it is important to fight for rights and to fight for freedom if the time comes, pushing me to say that a draft should be mandatory because each young man is held responsible for the country he now resides in and owes loyalty to that country by living it in alone.
As a liberatarian, I believe that it's wrong because it interferes with my rights as a citizen.
Here's the deal. Our government approved of it in the 1940s. The government is by no means perfect, but as U.S. citizens, we must realize that in dire times, dire decisions must be made, and in a time of war. Our rights as citizens are compromised because a threat to our country has been posed.
The problem I have with this is if our country was in serious danger... I mean. In serious danger... And we needed all the help we could get... Wouldn't it be the most cowardly thing for some young men to watch their country fall to the enemy when they could have saved it.
I am passionate about a man fulfilling his duties as an American citizen and stepping up and walking into the battlefield with his head held high and boldly proclaiming his CITIZENSHIP as an AMERICAN.
I will address pros greviances, and I will expand on what I meant and why pro is wrong.
1. The Constitution
I should have been more clear. Yes, we are debating on whether it is a good policy. I think the constitution is a good document, and I think that it's good that we hold our government accountable for breaking the constitution. If our government breaks its own constitution, it is objectively tyrannical. Whenever an executive branch policy, which this is, violates the constitution, it is primarily the President's fault, as the President has an oath of office to protect the Constitution. Since the military is an executive department, it is the President's authority and responsibility to make sure the military does nothing unconstitutional. If the Selective Service System is unconstitutional, and the President does nothing about it, then he is violating his oath of office willingly. If the precident is that the President can violate his oath of office willingly, then why would anyone do anything to stop the President from doing other unconstional things? If the President swore to protect the constitution and broke that promise, why should we trust him or her in anything else? Because I subjectively think that it's a good idea for the executive branch to follow the Constitution and to be honest, then I can say that the policy, regardless of whether the policy helps or hurts America, is bad already. I can say that just from a trust perspective because I don't think it's good for the President to support unconstitutional things in general, and I don't like liars.
The way every person in the United States pays loyalty is through taxation, and I think the taxation system could use some serious reform as well, but that's for a different debate. Military personal get, and should, get paid money for their service. I would argue that they should get paid more. The Selective Service System sets the precident that I have to sign up for it or else I can't vote. I don't get my rights as a citizen unless I am part of this potential drafting system. That is not good and quite scary.
2. Rights as a Citizen
We live in a country founded on the idea of life and liberty. There are plenty of Americans who feel led to devote their life to the miliary. The military will pay for their college, and it will ensure protection for their family for multiple generations. I would say that our Veteran's programs probably need improvements, but overall, I'd say that if you want to be in the military, you can be in the military and get various justworthy benefits for doing so. However, as a proud American, I believe my life, and the lives of many others, should not be given up to the military. Keeping the Selective Service System running will open up the possibility for a draft someday. That is scary to think about all the great minds that might be lost in the field of battle. I think it's better if those who want to be in the military make up our army. It forces the government to be more strategic and efficient with our military, as they are not pawns in a game of chess. Only necessary wars should be fought. It's not like our country has ever been in danger of being taken over in the past one-hundred years.
My oppenent failed to address my argument on equal rights for men and women, and I will reiterate it. I am not being vulgar when I say that women get to vote because they vagina, while men have to sign up for an unconstitutional military drafting system to vote. Therefore, that is blatent sexism by our government. Men theorhetically can't vote without signing up for this because they don't have vaginas. That doesn't mean every voting male actually did sign up for this, as the government isn't able to fine or imprison every person who breaks this law. Still, I hope I am not in the minority when I say that I oppose the descriminitation against men just on the basis of their genitals. The solution is to get rid of the Selective Service System because it is a bad policy. The solution is to make a physical and mental testing system to get into the military that is the same for men and women. By this standard, I would assume that more men than women would make it through the testing system, but that's okay. Women generally aren't as strong as men, and if the military is 90% men, so be it. But the military should be chosen based on merit, and only those who volunteer should have to participate. We already spend approximentally five times as much money on military than China (1), the second biggest military in the world. Even in your hypothetically serious danger situation, I would rather have a smaller army filled with competent fighters and high tech weapons than incompetent soldiers depressed because they got drafted randomly. Not only is my policy more moral and outright better, my policy is possibly more effective in battle, and it's more patriotic. Following in the footsteps of our founding fathers is very patriotic and good, and I'm proud to oppose the Selective Service System.
THE CONSTITUTION REBUTTAL
My opponent has two very good arguments, and one of them will be difficult for me to address, but there is another thing, that my opponent has failed to see.
It comes from ARTICLE 1 SECTION 8 CLAUSE 11 - 12 of the CONSTITUTION:
"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy"
Boesball forfeited this round.
I obviously brought up a point my opponent did not know regarding the Constitution and the powers it gives to Congress to raise an army.
My opponent didn't address this and forfeited the round, which means that I technically have won the debate.
The US Selective Service System is a good policy. Like I said before, it may not be the greatest system, but it is a good system that I agree with. The reason I stated it wasn't great is because in my personal opinion, it's not a policy where I jump up and down screaming for another perfect system such as this. I find it to be solid and well organized and a policy that is carried out fervently and very well.
HERE IS WHY VOTERS SHOULD VOTE FOR ME:
1. I fully explained that the US Selective Service Act is Constitutional through what we saw in Article 1 Section 8 Clause 11-12.
2. I explained that numbers in a battle matter if each side is equally trained. In a draft, the U.S. military trains each draftee to a place where the soldier is equipped for battle and made effective in the line of forces, which is a huge advantage if we were thrown into a worldwide catastrophic event.
3. My opponent forfeited the final round and didn't refute my final argument meaning that he did not attempt to refute it or he couldn't find time to finish which is unprofessional and should automatically disqualify his argument.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||1|