Need some pro/con arguments for a debate topic

[montanafan]

My students are choosing topics for debate and one group wants their topic to be about bring back the draft, but make it a military draft for more or less non-combatant domestic troops for males and females 18-23 excluding those in school full time. The draftees would not be regular combat troops being sent overseas, they would do duties at bases and jobs here in the U.S..

Some of the pro arguments they have come up with so far have to do with it giving direction, discipline, and training to those who could use it, instilling a sense of duty to country in young people, freeing up regular troops for overseas duty and alleviating the lack of troops due to low recruitment,etc.

Con arguments so far have to do with the success of the all volunteer military to date making it unnecessary, the problems that could come with having draftees who don't want to be there not performing well, and that it would be a less than fair system because most of those eligible for the draft would come from poorer families.

They have done some research on the internet, but there's not much out there for this particular subject because of the way they've designed it. If you have any arguments you'd make pro or con I'll pass them along and they'd appreciate the help.

Thanks.

 

[villageidiot111]

Well, I don't know much about it, but I think that would be called mandatory civil service, not the draft, although they are the same idea. I think Israel has something similar.

 

[Phoenix86]

You can likely find pro information by researching Switzerland's military, they have a mandatory draft for x years at ~ age 18. It's quite an interesting system.

 

[montanafan]

Thanks, I'll tell them to see what kind of info they can find on both Israel and Switzerland's systems.

 

[dirtboy]

Con- We don't have enough bases left for all these people to work at.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: dirtboy
Con- We don't have enough bases left for all these people to work at.

it wouldn't all be done at bases. it's civil service more than military service. makes sense. have those that choose to go into the military, police or civil service be given the choice to waive this mandatory service etc.

pro- if designed well, it could really give young people a sense of what they want to do once they finish their education. they could be sent as apprentices also to certain types of businesses etc. there are lots of things that can be done.

 

[montanafan]

You bring up an interesting point, dirtboy. I just did a quick check for the number of military bases in the U.S. and the most recent one I could find was back in 1993 which listed 404 bases. Wikipedia says that there are 1, 221, 994 troops serving in the continental U.S., Alaska, and Hawaii. I'll have them see if they can find the number of domestic bases currently.

 

[ruffilb]

What style of debate? Lincon douglas?

I guess not, because you're doing a policy, not a value debate, but...

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: montanafan
Thanks, I'll tell them to see what kind of info they can find on both Israel and Switzerland's systems.

Here's a couple for the teacher.

Wiki
CIA Factbook

Should be able to get similar info for Israel from these sources.

 

[montanafan]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: dirtboy
Con- We don't have enough bases left for all these people to work at.

it wouldn't all be done at bases. it's civil service more than military service. makes sense. have those that choose to go into the military, police or civil service be given the choice to waive this mandatory service etc.

pro- if designed well, it could really give young people a sense of what they want to do once they finish their education. they could be sent as apprentices also to certain types of businesses etc. there are lots of things that can be done.

Yes, they would be including those draftees in civil service type jobs as well such as homeland security type positions.

Your pro argument is close to the basis of their pro argument that it would give a leg up to those young people who aren't going to school and would get some training etc. that would look good on a resume to help them get employment following their service.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: ruffilb
What style of debate? Lincon douglas?

I guess not, because you're doing a policy, not a value debate, but...

It's gotta be CX.

 

[montanafan]

Originally posted by: ruffilb
What style of debate? Lincon douglas?

I guess not, because you're doing a policy, not a value debate, but...

They have to come up with their own topic for debate and then discuss the basics of it with the class to see if they can get a team interested in opposing them. They do the research and then the two teams of two debate the topic in front of the class, first with each other and then taking questions, town hall style from the class.

 

[sygyzy]

What kind of teacher are you?

 

[montanafan]

Thanks, Phoenix86.

sygyzy, I teach high school American history, World history, and Civics right now. This is for the Civics classes.

 

[Phoenix86]

Anytime.

Debate styles.
This is most like "team policy debate" aka Cross-Examination aka CX.

Are you using the "official" format with timed speeches or something less formal?

 

[xSauronx]

have the government dictate to several million men exactly what they have to do for the next 5 years? the population of the united states make this type of task an enourmous, and unnecessary, undertaking.

mandatory service is useful in smaller countries that have no nearby allies and an otherwise insufficient core volunteer force for national defense, ex: israel (surrounded by enemies) or switzerland(neutral). the united states is quite large enough (most of the country couldnt be overrun easily) with a clearly sufficient volunteer force (well over 1 million men and women) and no nearby threatening neighbors to render mandatory service necessary for fear of invasion.

nevermind that we dont *need* to have available all active-duty troops to be sent overseas, and if we did, theres already a provision for selective service in case of an emergency large enough to warrant us needing more active duty troops for combat. weve already had wars on 2 fronts with multiple other deployments for peacekeeping right? abd without calling up *all* the military reserves so far.

and what about economic effects? im not going to hunt down a number, but lets guess several million people in your suggested age range: what do you do with all those jobs or lack of business in particularly hard-hit areas for 5 years?

how do you even administrate the training and use of that many people effectively? id guess you couldnt, unless you were sending most of them into a combat situation where you knew a huge number of them would be casualties and that you wouldnt end up having to keep up with them all. for years. then theres still the matter of training and supplying them, but again, in such a case, we have selective service which makes mandatory service at the age of 18 a headache that would probably do more harm than good in a number of ways.

thats just off the top of my head.

 

[montanafan]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86
Anytime.

Debate styles.
This is most like "team policy debate" aka Cross-Examination aka CX.

Are you using the "official" format with timed speeches or something less formal?

Another useful link for future consideration, thanks again, Phoenix86.

It's a combination of styles to make new debaters feel a little more comfortable.
The teams are made up of two students and the two teams stand at the front of the class at podiums on each side of my desk. I use a rubric with about 12-15 categories for grading that they get a copy of beforehand. It gives points for things like understanding of topic, enthusiasm, eye contact, presentation style, speaking voice, props, dress, rebuttal, use of time, etc.

Each team gets to make an opening statement, rebuttal, statement, rebuttal, and closing statement, each of which is timed. Then they take questions from the class to see how well they know their subject and can think on their feet. I make sure the questions are evenly divided between the two teams so that one doesn't get ganged up on. Then if I think it's necessary I'll ask each team a question or two.

 

[Stretchman]

It'll be an interesting debate, no doubt. Let us know how it turns out.

 

[Vic]

Conscript service is a blatant violation of an individual's inherent right to life. The basic underlying premise of conscript service is that an individual's very life does not belong to himself, but to the state.

 

[montanafan]

Originally posted by: xSauronx
have the government dictate to several million men exactly what they have to do for the next 5 years? the population of the united states make this type of task an enourmous, and unnecessary, undertaking.

mandatory service is useful in smaller countries that have no nearby allies and an otherwise insufficient core volunteer force for national defense, ex: israel (surrounded by enemies) or switzerland(neutral). the united states is quite large enough (most of the country couldnt be overrun easily) with a clearly sufficient volunteer force (well over 1 million men and women) and no nearby threatening neighbors to render mandatory service necessary for fear of invasion.

nevermind that we dont *need* to have available all active-duty troops to be sent overseas, and if we did, theres already a provision for selective service in case of an emergency large enough to warrant us needing more active duty troops for combat. weve already had wars on 2 fronts with multiple other deployments for peacekeeping right? abd without calling up *all* the military reserves so far.

and what about economic effects? im not going to hunt down a number, but lets guess several million people in your suggested age range: what do you do with all those jobs or lack of business in particularly hard-hit areas for 5 years?

how do you even administrate the training and use of that many people effectively? id guess you couldnt, unless you were sending most of them into a combat situation where you knew a huge number of them would be casualties and that you wouldnt end up having to keep up with them all. for years. then theres still the matter of training and supplying them, but again, in such a case, we have selective service which makes mandatory service at the age of 18 a headache that would probably do more harm than good in a number of ways.

thats just off the top of my head.

Thanks, xSauronx. You bring up some good points for the con side and for the pro side to have to find ways of countering. The pro side wants to make the time of service 2 years after training is completed. So two and a half years max I guess, but that would just give more fuel to your argument about the expense of training and keeping them and if it would make sense from a cost effective standpoint. I don't remember them mentioning the emergency selective service option so I'll remind them if they hadn't thought of it. And you bring up the point of the reserves and where would they fit into all of this that I need to make sure they've considered. Thanks.

 

[0roo0roo]

woulda been useful to have more people to help new orleans. but the cost,...we already have a credit card president.

 

[montanafan]

Originally posted by: Vic
Conscript service is a blatant violation of an individual's inherent right to life. The basic underlying premise of conscript service is that an individual's very life does not belong to himself, but to the state.

Good point for the con side, Vic. I know that the they have already discussed using some argument that the draft infringes on individual freedoms, but the way you put it could make the pro side have to come up with a good counter argument, especially in front of a class of mainly 17-18 year olds who are probably not going to be too thrilled with the possibility of being drafted. Thanks.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Vic
Conscript service is a blatant violation of an individual's inherent right to life. The basic underlying premise of conscript service is that an individual's very life does not belong to himself, but to the state.

so is taxation. it's just another form of taxation where you are requiring time instead of money. how is one more or less constitutional than the other?

 

[her209]

Can you leave the country and come back when you don't fall within the specified age range?

 

[montanafan]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
woulda been useful to have more people to help new orleans. but the cost,...we already have a credit card president.

Good point, 0roo0roo. I'll mention to the pro side that they could bring up the recent hurricanes and how these draftees could have been helpful there and would be in other situations that the national guard has to be called up for.