Instigator / Pro
0
1480
rating
4
debates
12.5%
won
Topic
#4113
USA must abolish Selective Service and make the Draft illegal.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
AustinL0926
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 1
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
1
1636
rating
33
debates
93.94%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
I am strongly against the selective service and believe that it should be removed. The reason is that, it forces people to risk their lives for a government which has constantly harmed them. The last time that the draft was was in the Vietnam War. In this war, United States went to war with a country halfway across the globe which was minding its own business. United States drafted soldiers for a war that was not defensive, nor was it morally justifiable. Of the people who were drafted, many chose not to go to war. These people went to prison for up to a decade.
Another reason why drafting people is wrong is because it affects very young people. At the age of 18, boys are supposed to go to school and learn more about the world. Not doing the dirty work of a government and risking their lives, physical, and mental health in a battlefield.
The final reason to abolish the draft is that if a government truly deserves to be saved, it should have happy citizens voluntarily enlisting into the army. If not enough people enlist, it simply means that the government failed its people and doesn't even deserve being saved or helped.
1. The resolution says that the US must abolish Selective Service and make the Draft illegal.
2. If any of these three critical conditions are proven false, then the entire resolution is false.
3. “must” implies a necessity. However, my opponent’s arguments only show that the US has a moral obligation to end Selective Service and the Draft – it does not prove that the US has an absolute desideratum to do so. In other words, my opponent is conflating “should” with “must”.
4. “and” implies that both systems must be removed. However, the Draft relies on the Selective Service system. [1] Therefore, if the Selective Service system was removed, then there would be no need to go through the trouble of formally removing the Draft.
5: “illegal” implies that the US needs to formally outlaw the Draft by criminal law. This is obviously a ludicrous proposition, since abolishing it would be far easier. In fact, whether a government program could even be criminalized is questionable.
6. Combining 3-4-5: If you, the voter, agree that it is possible to abolish the draft (instead of making it illegal), then it follows that there is no need to make the draft illegal. By the “and” structure of the proposition, it’s clear that the resolution is negated.
7. My opponent's arguments fail to adequately uphold the resolution, as I have shown - they merely support the proposition that the Draft is a bad thing and should be abolished.
8. In conclusion, if you agree with 3, 4, 5, or 6, then you should vote CON. Thanks for your consideration!
Sources:
no offense, but this is something that should have been talked over in a discussion, not a debate.
the way its presented looks like someone has a strong opinion, nothing more.
i challenge m.h.s to make a forum on this very debate and discuss with others.
Perhaps.
Ok.
Also, did you see my argument yet?
We could finish this debate, then you could challenge me to a topic with different parameters. Unfortunately, mods can't edit debates that are already started iirc.
Could I edit the parameters, or does one of us have to create a new debate?
I've been called the Obi Wan of this site. I mainly just advise people, and ban spam bots.
Oh and I do agree with you that the selective service amounts to slavery. I would even argue that for Stop Lose.
I would assure you that Barney knows his stuff.
You're either trolling me or you know your stuff.
Anyways, thanks for the information.
I would be willing to do the same debate with more rounds, if my opponent wishes so.
You could challenge con to another debate using the same R1, or even if you both agree to it launch the other with more rounds and delete this one (moderators would do the deleting for you should both sides consent).
Must is a good line to have inside your arguments. However, you're trying to imply a moral imperative, not something which absolutely must occur. It's good to frame resolutions for lower certainty than your arguments anyways.
Another problem of must statements, is they imply an "or else" but rarely contain them. "I must eat," is false, since I can technically starve myself and die. While one option is infinitely superior, there still is an option.
Something you may find useful:
tiny.cc/DebateArt
I didn't know that I couldn't defend my case in a single-round debate. I'll make sure to not do it again.
"Ought" is too weak of a word for the situation. I think "must" is the most appropriate word considering that the topic is about a form of slavery.
"must" is almost impossible to prove. "Ought" is the term you're looking for.
Also, debates which are single round, do not let you defend your case against even the weakest of refutations.
I meant that the government should end the draft for good.
"Make the draft illegal"
I don't think making it illegal is the word choice to go as the draft is issued by a governmental agency.