The Instigator
jimmy53791
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
ReedSchneider
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

conscription

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: 10/16/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 315 times Debate No: 81077
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

jimmy53791

Pro

Everyone from the nation that they live has been cared for, fed and nourished by their motherland and therefore have a responsibility to defend those who are young old and cant fight. They should also defend their homeland that offers the liberties that could be taken away if there is a defeat. Many times throughout history we have seen great nations survive only because of conscription. For example, in WWII the Japanese imperial forces were stationed in papua new guinea and Indonesia. The threat of invasion was looming. The Japanese imperial forces had already raped, pillaged and rampaged through many parts of Asia. If there was no conscription in Australia the Japanese may have gone onto win WWII and the world would be a shockingly different and horrifying place.
ReedSchneider

Con

First off, I would just like to thank my opponent for challenging me to this debate, I am excited for this challenge beyond all means. I will now make my arguments.

The conscription of individuals into the armed forces is an act many would deem unfortunate, yet necessary. Is it really necessary though? Can the conscription of men truly be justified? I say no, it most certainly can not, due to conscriptions hypocrisy regarding liberty, its economic implications, its reliance on coercion, its potential to be used as a force of evil, and its ultimate non necessity to a worthy society.

First off, conscription is outright hypocritical in regards to the liberty of individuals. Many would say that the reason soldiers are conscripted is to protect the liberty of the nations, but there"s one problem with that, and that is that when conscription is enacted, the overall liberty of a nation is severely reduced, so this raises a question, if these soldiers are raised in order to protect liberty, but the very act of raising them destroys liberty, then doesn"t that seem a bit counter intuitive? One could argue that therefore the conscription of armies is paradoxical, and therefore the argument of using conscripts in order to protect freedom simply holds no ground.

Conscription also has serious negative economic implications associated with it. Disregarding the direct costs of training and arming all of these new soldiers (which is no small amount), there are other, indirect costs that arise from conscription. The biggest bill that gets put forward is that associated with opportunity cost. These men that are forcibly put into the military are giving up opportunities that could create a better world. These are the world"s future engineers, teachers, proprietors, etc" and by transferring manpower from the private sector to the inefficient, wasteful public sector that is the army, you are negating any and all possible positive benefits that these individuals would have provided. This in effect creates a double edged sword, not only does the nation have to spend tremendous amounts of money in maintaining an army, they also miss out on possible revenue by damaging their own economy.

Now we will take a look at conscription as a moral entity. In order to do this we have to define what is required in order to achieve a conscripted army, and the answer is simple" coercion. Coercion is defined as the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats, and perfectly describes what is necessary in order to force men into the military. Because coercion requires force or threats, it is inherently immoral, and therefore should be eradicated as a means to which government can increase its manpower.

I have a claim to make, and this claim is one my opponent, and everyone else, should agree with. This claim is that not all governments are good, and if we simply look within 100 years of the past we can see many examples of governments that exuded pure evil. So the question I would pose is this". if governments can be so evil, do we really want them to have the ability to forcibly conscript their civilians? One could argue that without conscription, the world would be a much safer place due to the responding inability of governments to wage devastating wars.

If a society is truly worthy of surviving, it won"t require conscription. What I mean by this is that if there is a society that comes under attack, and the amount of people that volunteer to defend the nation is insufficient, doesn"t that say something about the society? Couldn't one argue that if this society was worth defending, that people would have voluntarily chosen to defend it? One of the major flaws of conscription is that it literally proves that people are so unwilling to defend a society that they require threat of imprisonment in order to comply". Now whether this is the fault of the individual or the society becomes the real question, and without a doubt I would say that this is completely a fault of society.

Thanks for your time, and in conclusion I will state an example in order to better illustrate my point. My opponent brought up Australia resorting to conscription in order to fight Japan. (A claim was somewhat made that had Australia not levied its forces then Japan may have won" a bit odd/inaccurate of an assertion, but I see the point that he attempted to make) Applying my reasoning to Australia, if the Australian people were unwilling to take up arms in order to defend their land and their liberties, then maybe those liberties weren"t worth defending, and if the enemy is totalitarianism, and Australia resorts to totalitarianism in order to defeat Japan, then who really won? and if your answer is still Australia, then I have one more question". At what cost?

http://www.veteranstoday.com...
http://fee.org...
http://rationalwiki.org...
Debate Round No. 1
jimmy53791

Pro

jimmy53791 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
jimmy53791

Pro

jimmy53791 forfeited this round.
ReedSchneider

Con

ReedSchneider forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
jimmy53791

Pro

jimmy53791 forfeited this round.
ReedSchneider

Con

I extend, once again. I was hoping my opponent would put forward an actual argument.
Debate Round No. 4
jimmy53791

Pro

jimmy53791 forfeited this round.
ReedSchneider

Con

ReedSchneider forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.