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

Was it just to draft men into the US military during WWII?

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
endermends has forfeited round #3.
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: 3/1/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 439 times Debate No: 100433
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




I think it was a just idea to draft men into the US Army during WWII, because we were attacked during that war. I think we should've entered the war earlier, because the Axis showed interest in taking over the world. I think around 2/3 of US servicemen were draftees; many of which died in combat. Unlike many other wars, the US and it's close allies where attacked, in which American lives, and American civilians died. During WWII we were actually fighting to keep tyranny and nazism out of the world, and to protect our country and its allies


I accept your challenge and hereby submit my opening statements.

There are two main arguments I will be utilizing in this debate. The first of which is constitutionality. This argument is valid because a policy in the U.S. cannot be just if it violates the constitution. Not only does the 13th amendment strictly prohibit involuntary service the 10th amendment states that the federal government is not allowed to do so for that fact it is not outlined in the constitution.
My second, and arguably more important, point is that of morality. The draft is a form of slavery, no matter the reason for its institution. This is easily proven because forcing someone to do something, whether it be working for the state, killing, or anything else that is punishable by prison or even death is involuntary servitude. I would even argue that, of all slavery that existed, forcing someone to go to war is by far the most disgusting, and is also a form of murder for those who died in combat.

Other points worthy of consideration and further argumentation that I will bring up later are that it leads to more war and it degrades our society.

I look forward to reading your rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 1


In the case of Arver v. United States, Arver brought up that the Selective Service Act infringed upon the 13th amendments involuntary servitude. This was dismissed, because Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution which gives Congress power "to raise and support armies" and "make all laws which shall be necessary and proper" to carry out that power. One of the justices , Edward White in the case stated that while the government had a duty to its citizens, the citizens also had a "reciprocal obligation".
I personally do agree that it is wrong to draft men and send them straight into combat roles. If anything combat roles should be voluntary.
However retrospectively thinking, it was just to draft men. With all of the genocide that happened during the war, I think it was just. Most WWII vets that I talk to are happy they served as many saw the camps, and the survivors they liberated. They also felt that it was their duty and morally felt compelled to serve. Moreover, young men had the choice of having a conscientious objector status. Where they would work non combat roles, or roles that helped to the war cause such as farming or manufacture...


I will be refuting your arguments by the two main points you made.

1. Arver v. United States

Selective service act was upheld in court, but this does not mean it is constitutional. The reasons Pro pointed to as to why it was upheld was "'to raise and support armies' and 'make laws which shall be necessary and proper.'" The SSA called for compulsory service which was punishable by prison or even death, as I stated before. This is clearly not constitutional, as explained in my opening statement, compulsory service is a form of slavery especially when enforced with these drastic consequences. Why am I restating this? Because it contradicts "to raise and support armies," like all other parts of the constitution, this part must obey the authority of all other constitutional rights. The 13th amendment states "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." As I have expressed clearly, the draft is a form of slavery and involuntary servitude by definition. Pro did not refute this in his speech's.
To move on to the next point justifying slavery, "make all laws which shall be necessary and proper," the U.S. federal government had no logical reason to enforce a draft other than negligence. Just look at today, we have absolutely no need for a draft because the USFG incentivizes military servitude. Besides that, I again make the argument of this point having to obey to other parts of the constitution. So no, it does NOT justify the involuntary servitude of the draft. Pro again, has not made any points refuting this.

2. Retrospectively Just.
This logic is extremely flawed, the ends DEFINITELY do not justify the means. There is a huge debate on this topic but the three main criticisms of this thinking, called consequentialism, will be outlined.

a. Consequentialism results in immoral acts being defined as moral.
The very first thing people should notice is that this line of thinking allows horribly immoral acts to be considered moral.
For example, which is just one of many, in the popularized story of Robin Hood, the character himself steals from the rich to aid the poor. I believe this kind of grey area is why consequentialism exists. This is because of the question one asks in regards to morality. Is it understandable that Robin Hood did this? Indeed it is. But is it just to steal? No it is not.

b. Consequentialism asks for too much.
This line of thinking, in order to justify one's action, calls for considering the outcome of one's action. How is one to do this? Of course, you can look at POSSIBLE outcomes, but none of those are set in stone. That also leaves things open for mental gymnastics to justify your actions by predicting some domino effect that results in good being done.
For example, how could one see all the ramifications of a lie? Certainly, sometimes it amounts to nothing, but other times it has devastating implications to another party and perhaps a party you didn't even know was listening.
The point is, one can not possibly know every ramification of any action.

In sum, Pro has been negligent in countering my slavery argumentation that revealed the draft for what it truly was, and how it was obviously prohibited by the constitution. Pro has also used ends to justify the means, which I would deem a logical fallacy, and I have clearly pointed out the flaws and detriments to such thinking. It does not matter if the men had some choice of what role, the fact is the government enforced slavery by law with the draft. Whether that slavery is violent and dangerous or not is irrelevant, the only reason that was brought up in my speech was to illustrate how horrible it was.
Pro also claimed many things, like the case of Arver v. United States, constitutional amendments and articles, quotations, and WWII vets being "happy" they served, without any sources or citations whatsoever. Granted the first two are public knowledge, it just shows negligence.

I can not see how any third party judge would be able to vote Pro at this point in the debate without any bias swaying their decision.
I look forward to your final arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 0 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.