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

Should all 18 year olds be drafted into the military?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/30/2018 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 887 times Debate No: 107303
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)




All 18 year olds should be drafted into the military. No exceptions. This would make the nation stronger by having everyone military trained. Everyone would be able to handle a rifle, throw grenades and have military discipline.

The nation would be prepared for any type of war, or invasion. Everyone would be taught to make a bed that you could bounce a nickel off, everyone would learn respect discipline and be in top physical shape.

This would also reduce loitering at local malls and streets, and provide an income to all 18 year olds. This would also make respectful individuals and provide a sense of purpose to young minds.

Only exemptions to the draft would be physically handicap people or people with disabilities.


Conscription empirically is associated with more military disputes " by increasing the number of soldiers, states are incentivized to lash out with newfound power
Poutvaara 09 [Panu Professor of Economics at the University of Munich and Director of the Ifo Center for International Institution. Empirically, the draft may contribute to a militarization of society. teaching ) citizens how to use weapons and kill, and instilling in them the view that killing for the home country is a duty, draft fosters processes by which civil societies organize themselves for violence increases the likelihood and severity of armed conflicts.14 Between 1800 and 1945, basically all wars in Europe were fought with conscript armies, and democratic countries like the U.S. and France later used conscript military in their colonial wars Analyzing militarized disputes from 1886 to 1992 systematically, Choi and James (2003) find that a military manpower system based on conscripted soldiers is associated with more military disputes than armies. Based on cross-sectional data Anderson et al. (1996) conclude also that "warlike" states are more likely to rely on conscription.

Turn - A draft causes adventurism " an oversupply of soldiers encourages massive sacrifices " historically proven
Lacey, 03 " US Army Reserve officer (James, Symposium - Q: Is restoring universal military conscription in the United States a good idea? NO: The modern military needs a smaller force of highly motivated, trained professionals, not a horde of draftees. Insight on the News, 4 Feb 2003, Accessed 4 July 2016), the moral danger of a draft is that it will provide so many troops that there might be a temptation to waste them in useless engagements. history has demonstrated over and over bloody charges during the Civil War could not have been sustained without a draft to replace those slaughtered. In World War I, British Prime Minister David Lloyd George actually began holding back reinforcements so that his generals could not waste their lives in another big-push offensive. During World War II, Gen. George Marshall used to walk the casualty figures into the president every day to remind him that real men were dying on every decision he made. Finally, does anyone think the useless carnage of Vietnam could have continued year after year if we had a volunteer force? At some point the volunteers would have been reduced to a trickle and we would have had to find another solution.

Empirics confirm three warrants why national service increases crime " it breaks down entry costs to crime, natural barriers, and delays insertion of young into market
Galiani et al 06 [Sebastian, Sebastian Galiani is a Professor of Economics at University of Maryland and Visiting Professor at Universidad de San Andres, Argentina. He is a member of the executive committee of LACEA. In the past, he held positions at Universidad Torcuato Di Tella and Universidad de San Andres in Argentina and was Tinker Visiting Professor at Columbia University and Universidad de Los Andes (Colombia) and visiting Scholar at Stanford and UC Berkeley. He was the chairman of the Network of Inequality and Poverty of LACEA during 2004 and 2005 and a member of its executive committee between 2004 and 2008; Mart"n Antonio Rossi is Associate Professor of Economics at Universidad de San Andres and Professor of Economics at Universidad de Buenos Aires. Ernesto Schargrodsky received his Ph.D. in Economics from Harvard University in 1998. He is President of the Universidad Torcuato Di Tella in Buenos Aires. "Conscription and Crime"; October 2006; World Bank Policy Research Working Paper; (8/9/17)] [Premier]
The objective of this study is to estimate the causal relationship between mandatory participation in military service and crime. A priori, different hypotheses could predict a positive or negative effect of military service on involvement in criminal behavior. We exploit the random assignment through a draft lottery of young men to conscription in Argentina to identify this causal effect. Our results suggest that participation in military service increased the likelihood of developing a criminal record in adulthood. Additional evidence suggests two particular channels through which this effect could have operated. The significant effect of military service on arms-related crimes suggests that the firearm training received during military service may have reduced the entry costs into crime or the natural barriers to committing violent acts. Moreover, the significant effect of military service on crimes against property and the estimation of the largest effect for individuals that provided two years, rather than one, of military service may imply that military service delayed the insertion of the young into the labor market, affecting their future opportunities. To sum up, our results do not encourage the introduction of military service on anticrime grounds.

Conscription increases crime because military service reduces educational prospects, regardless of active duty.
Lindo and Stoecker 2010 " profs of Economics at Univ of Oregon and UC Davis [Drawn into Violence: Evidence on "What Makes a Criminal" from the Vietnam Draft Lotteries, July 2010,, July 5, 2016]
Like Lochner and Morreti (2004), our results highlight the importance of "nurture" beyond an individual"s immediate circumstances. Also like Lochner and Morreti, we find especially large effects on violence. We find robust evidence that military service increases the probability of incarceration for violent crimes among whites, with point estimates suggesting an impact of 0.27 percentage points.26 Perhaps not surprisingly, our estimates suggest that military service has a much greater impact on criminal behavior than Lochner and Morreti find for education. To put the relative magnitudes into context, our estimates suggest that military service is equivalent a twelveyear reduction in schooling for whites.27 While our estimation strategy only allows us to estimate the effects of military service during the Vietnam Era, there is good reason to expect that our results may be relevant for the modern military as well. Between 14 and 25 percent of veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan have problems related to posttraumatic stress disorder. This is quite similar to the estimated 18 to 20 percent of Vietnam veterans exhibiting the same symptoms.28 25 As another robustness check, we have considered the interaction between incarceration for a violent crime and non-Army military service as an outcome. Since nearly all drafted men served in the Army, we should not find significant effects on this outcome. Indeed, we find draft eligibility significantly raises the probability of being a violent offender and an army veteran and has no effect on being a violent offender and a veteran from another branch of service. 26 These findings are broadly consistent with much of the prior literature that has considered military service as a determinant of violent behavior. Most notably similar to our study in terms of the treatment, Rohlfs (2010) finds that combat exposure leads to increases in self-reported violent crimes among both whites and nonwhites.

the AVF has dramatically increased the readiness of the military - The draft would kill military readiness by reducing retention
Warner, 2001- Professor of Economics, Clemson University [John, with Beth J. Asch, The Record and Prospects of the All-Volunteer Military in the United States The Journal of Economic Perspectives, April, July 7 2016]
out of characters.
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to thank my opponent in participating in this debate.

My opponent raises many valid points and quotes from previous scholars but in round 2 of this debate I would like to focus on current and modern warfare as we see it in 2018. Sure history has taught us many things but with the changing times we can not always rely on history. The world is moving at a faster pace now then ever before, The global population is larger then ever. There are more enemies of the state, terrorism is at an all high with ISIS, Boko Haram, Hezbola, Islamic factions such as Islamic Revolutionary Guard, Taliban, the threat of terrorism and attacks is greater now then ever before in the country. Also lone wolf terrorist and home grown terrorist groups are all in the country. These groups are military trained and equipped with weapons that a regular police force is not equipped for to stop. This is why the military is required. But you need manpower for it, without conscription we are running out of troops. Then you have great military forces as China, Russia, North Korea, India, all of them with military populations larger then the USA. We can not rely on technology alone, without manpower technology is useless.

Other benefits of conscription include the honor of defending the homeland as well as providing employment to youths. Contribution to the global peace effort. Assistance to developing countries with disaster relief, with global changes at drastic levels, the military can provide assistance in these countries such as earthquake relief in Haiti, droughts and flood relief around the world.

But my main goal of my debate is for 18 year olds to be put in the military because they are soft and irresponsible today, with the sitting on their phones all day, the lack of discipline and or respect for older people and general disregard for others, the military would put them in shape and teach them respect and discipline. General skills would be taught, the sense of belonging, team work and basic knowledge of survival, mechanics and quick thinking under pressure would be beneficial to a society of millenials that have no common sense as everything is looked up on line in theory yet no practical experience is acquired. Military skills can be used later in life after the military for business practices and problem solving as well.

According to a study of the social effects of conscription in Israel by Ori Swed, an Israeli-born professor of sociology at the University of Texas, and his colleague John Sibley Butler, service in the Israel Defense Forces "cultivates new skills (human capital), new social networks (social capital), and new social norms and codes of behavior (cultural capital)". That yields what Messrs Swed and Butler call "military capital. The Swed and Butler study shows that 90 per cent of workers in Israel"s technology sector have performed military service, versus 60 per cent of the country"s adult population. So valuable are Israeli ex-conscripts" skills that Silicon Valley firms compete to recruit them.

All 18 year olds should be conscripted because all they do is waste their time on their phones, live in moms basement until 40 and complain that they can't find a job because of laziness. During the 1940's & 1950's, young men went off to war, they returned after the war, bought homes and started families all before 24, where today the young society is more concerned about their e-mail and texts instead of what makes a man. The military would provide discipline and direction for these young punks who do nothing other than chat on their phones all day. This would create jobs for them so there would be no excuse about not finding a job and it would crate responsible young men and women not lazy, getting up at noon and having mom cut the crust off their sandwiches sissies!!!

Semper fi Huah!!!


The purpose of this debate is over the effects of conscription on modern warfare, therefore we must accept historical precedent regarding conscription as conscription has been unused due to the increased effectiveness of the all-volunteer force. Next, my opponent argues that there are more enemies of the state. this is true. which is why I want a professional, all-volunteer force fighting terrorism rather than ineffective unwilling warriors. furthermore, as for his point on homeland security and homegrown terrorists, the Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the federal government from using the military to enforce laws on U.S. soil. Next, there is no evidence that A. the military as it is now couldn't handle Russia or China, or North Korea or B. that war with India is in any way impending. Our military is more powerful as it is now.

Next, for his points on character, he talks about the "honor of defending the homeland" however, honor can't be compulsory, honor must be gained by choice or it isn't truly honor. He also talks on employment for youth, however, as I stated in my case- empirics prove that conscription damages employment by delaying introduction to the labor market and reducing educational opportunity. Humanitarian pursuits such as the ones my opponent brings up are better performed by institutions other than the military, the Red Cross, the Peace Corps, etc

My opponent opens his next contention with a generalization with no factual substantiation. Furthermore, integrating that form of laziness into the military will reduce retention and military readiness and as a result, the quality of the military. Next, millennials aren't eighteen anymore we're well past that according to the pew research center. Moreover, in regard to his point on everything being looked up, one this does not replace practical experience, the alternative would be to utilize archaic methodology which would harm efficiency. to continue, Empirics prove as well as historical precedents prove that conscription actually harms future business and professional studies.

Next, he brings up cultural impacts in Israel. However, Israel is a small country on constant high alert. their entire culture revolves around not getting killed by the Arabs who want to wipe them off the face of the Earth. The situation of the United States is in no way comparable to the situation of Israel.

Another even larger generalization with no basis in fact. the rest of this is an ad hoc argument with some ad hominems sprinkled in. there are no real arguments here. there is no evidence that the majority of young people aren't interested in starting families and entering the job markets and buying homes.
Debate Round No. 2


For my final round I would like to dispute the statements made by my opponent.

A. The US military has been used on home soil in the case of the shooting of Mike Brown in Ferguson Missouri. The military is always brought in when the turmoil is too large to handle with regular police forces. The military was also brought in in Baltimore during their riots a few years ago. So my opponent is wrong in that regard. The military was also brought in Houston after the hurricane last year and also after Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans in the past. Man power is needed to restore order and to provide humanitarian work, who else but the military has the man power to assist in these situations. Therefore men are required which if you spread them too thin will not be enough force for defense, oversees operations and humanitarian work.

B. Honor is built through hard work, dedication, perseverance, and team work, all characters that the military instills in their recruits and new soldiers.

C. My opponent completely disregarded my point of conscription being beneficial to future employment as in Silicon Valley, the following countries in Europe use a military draft Austria, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, Greece and Norway, all of these countries have benefitted by having responsible young men who are ready to defend their nations as well as provide them with necessary life skills and future employment in all business careers after the military.

D. The situation in the USA might not be comparable to Israel but as we are seeing all around the world, armies are having a hard time filling their yearly army ranks with volunteers as young punks would rather play video games in moms basements then go out and work. Too many people in this age bracket 18-25, think they don"t have enough time to be a reservist because they will have to join for a long time and it"s difficult to leave moms basement and home cooking and having moms allowance and for her to do their spidey pajamas laundry done. Therefore more and more countries are introducing conscription. Sweden, Poland and Norway are all ready to introduce conscription. The USA is constantly in threat with the middle east, North Korea and Russia, all of the countries are bolstering their militaries for a global conflict in the future as we have not had a major war in over 80 years. We do not want to be caught with our pants down or be forced to train new recruits during war, we want to be prepared and since young people don't do anything other then play on the internet or on their phones we need to get these people into service that is required to protect the nation.

My opponent seems to think that I'm generalizing all my opinions, well that's his opinion, with his blinder on not looking at the bigger global picture, so I will include reading material and actual research for him to peruse and make him realize that the military draft is needed to get these lazy good for nothing young people off their asses and being productive and protecting the wonderful country we have, just like the young men and women during 1939-1945 when they served in WWII and all the future conflict after from the Axis of Japan and Nazi Germany.

It's for all the reasons below that is why all 18 year olds should be drafted into the military!!


First I would like to address my opponents point regarding military presence on U.S. soil. First, he brings up Ferguson in which the National Guard was present. However, according to the VA, members of the National Guard are not considered full-time military personnel and lacks the infrastructure for a draft. Next, he brings up humanitarian relief. 1. the Posse Comitatus Act I mentioned only is in regard to law enforcement not humanitarian reasons. However, the military is already fully capable of handling these issues without millions of teenagers making a mess of things. a draft would decrease effectiveness.

again, honor can't be instilled by force during the Vietnam War, draftees behaved in ways unbecoming a U.S. soldier.

He brings up points regarding other countries that benefit. First Austria, Austria voted to keep military conscription which their defense minister called outdated in an era of "counter-terrorism, cybercrime... [and] failed states". Furthermore, the CIA global factbook can be consulted to find that many of the countries mentioned including Austria do not draft all of their 18-year-olds into the military but require registration similarly to the United States

Any problems that the military has in regard to recruitment would be due to increased obesity rates and people not meeting the standards. thus health programs would be a more appropriate fix.

and Yes, saying that all eighteen-year-olds are punks living in their mother's basement until they're forty is a generalization. Moreover, the military is competing with colleges and higher education for recruits which is not a cause for a draft as that reduces education prospects and will cause an increase in crime and harm future economic growth. Empirics prove. see my first post.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Leaning 2 years ago
If everyone was capable of being in the military they wouldn't have to give out so many Separations for various reasons.

I do like the idea of having to serve in some capacity for citizenship, like in Starship Troopers.

Forcibly drafting people seems more liable to set them up against the country than for it honestly.
Posted by FanboyMctroll 2 years ago
Well you live on the west coast, so when the North Koreans invade there first and start landing thousands of troops in California, what are you going to do, run and scream like a girl for the hills, or stand with rifle and fight the invaders!!!.

Are you going to be a soldier, boy? or are you going to be a chicken???

drop and give me 20 private!!!

We will make you a soldier and you will fight in a war if needed. Show your country you are not a wussy.
Posted by Nd2400 2 years ago
I wouldn't fight in a war. Unless my life was on the line. So if that comes to that then one of two thing would have happen.
1. We being attack from Other big country like Russia and China.
2. The other is we being attack from aliens...
Other than fighting for my life. I can't see why i should join. For me....
Posted by FanboyMctroll 2 years ago
I don't know what I was told
Nd2400 you better report for duty as you are foretold
turn that computer off right now
whining and complaining are disallow
put that uniform and boots and be at the ready
grab that rifle, soldier already!!!
Posted by FanboyMctroll 2 years ago
It will become LAW. People refusing to show up at the enlistment and basic training will be rounded up like cattle to be reported for duty.

With North Korea as a major threat and with a standing army of 1 million soldiers there are not enough bullets to kill them all. If a whole army charges you, your gun does not have enough bullets to stop a charging army, sure the first 30 will fall, but then you will need to reload and they will be on top of you.

We need to have the military ready at all times, there are many enemies out there and missiles and technology can be hacked or disabled with a big EMP bomb, so you have to rely on man power.

There is no infringement on your liberty when the country is under attack boy!! You need to be ready and be trained. War might not be here but you should be prepared.

Ezpresso you better report to the command center soldier!! ON THE DOUBLE!!! Don't make me come down and get you, now drop down and give me 50!!! HUAH!!!
Posted by Ezpresso 2 years ago
No, that's a stupid idea

1) It's an infringement upon individual liberty, as Mill wrote "The only justifiable use of power and influence over an individual's freedom and liberty is if it prevents harm to others"
2) We have no need for a large army, we aren't at war and probably won't be for a considerable amount of time
3) It isn't good for those who are being drafted, nobody would want to serve and would rather spend their time doing things they want
4) What about personal ambition and individual talent? Nope, just through everybody into the army, because that's a very intelligent idea, isn't it?
Posted by Actions_Speak 2 years ago
That's to restrictive on freedom to ever be put into action. Especially since the Us & Russia have an automatic victory if ever needed.
Posted by Nd2400 2 years ago
Just to let you know the draft won't happen again. Why because we don't need a draft. And here are the reasons.
1. We have advanced missiles
2. We not in a big war.
3. Have better technology such as using drones, and cyberspace.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Leaning 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con used relevant examples of history, case studies of the past, difficulty in acquiring fit personnel. Pros arguments had more to do with war zone countries, attempts to forcible utilize and develop youth, and military use in humanitarian. I feel that Cons points are more relevant and convincing in utility and precedent... Apologies if I missed anything in my vote, I found the debate interesting.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.