Need some pro/con arguments for a debate topic

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: her209
Can you leave the country and come back when you don't fall within the specified age range?

that is the problem with a conscription service. the biggest con: conscription service would require citizen registration. something more encompassing than Social Security number. it would also require a database to track those registrations. everything you do in life would reqiure you to show the registration card.

this would make it easier for companies to verify your resume etc. it would be something americans would NEVER go for.

 

[montanafan]

Originally posted by: 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?

A good counter for the pro side, though I know those in the class are going to say it feels like double-dipping for them. Required service and taxes for them, but not for all.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: montanafan

Originally posted by: 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?

A good counter for the pro side, though I know those in the class are going to say it feels like double-dipping for them. Required service and taxes for them, but not for all.

yup, but think of it this way, for 18 yrs you were not required to pay taxes, not only did you not pay taxes, the government subsidized you through your parents income tax.

this is a way to pay that back.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 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?

Hardly. Taxation does not put an individual in jeopardy of life and limb. And taxation is implicitly supported by the constitution, both in the body and by amendment. Not so conscription.

 

[montanafan]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: her209
Can you leave the country and come back when you don't fall within the specified age range?

that is the problem with a conscription service. the biggest con: conscription service would require citizen registration. something more encompassing than Social Security number. it would also require a database to track those registrations. everything you do in life would reqiure you to show the registration card.

this would make it easier for companies to verify your resume etc. it would be something americans would NEVER go for.

her209, I don't know if they've considered that. The only exclusion they mentioned to me was for those in school full time. I'll ask them how they'd deal with that.

PlatinumGold, I don't know if either side has considered that, but I'll bring it up. The pro side will probably counter with the current selective service registration requirement though.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 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?

Hardly. Taxation does not put an individual in jeopardy of life and limb. And taxation is implicitly supported by the constitution, both in the body and by amendment. Not so conscription.

i don't see how a conscript civil service would put peoples life and limb in jeopardy. i seemed to remember to OP talking about a

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.

hmm, non combatant domestic troops. i don't see how it would put peoples life and limb in any more jeopardy than their normal day to day lives.

 

[montanafan]

Yes, they said it would be non-combatant positions and that these draftees would not be used for overseas duties.

Good rebuttals for both sides PlatinumGold and Vic. Thanks.

Edit: I think they're wanting to make the idea of the draft more palatable and more about civic duty.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 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?

Hardly. Taxation does not put an individual in jeopardy of life and limb. And taxation is implicitly supported by the constitution, both in the body and by amendment. Not so conscription.

i don't see how a conscript civil service would put peoples life and limb in jeopardy. i seemed to remember to OP talking about a

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.

hmm, non combatant domestic troops. i don't see how it would put peoples life and limb in any more jeopardy than their normal day to day lives.

Ah, I see... so basically we're talking about a time tax on the poor then, eh? Can't pay in money so they'll pay in time? With those in school excluded, it's certain to be that way. Sounds just as bad IMO. Although I do understand that many people have never seen a tax they didn't like, especially if they know that someone else (and not themselves) will be paying.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 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?

Hardly. Taxation does not put an individual in jeopardy of life and limb. And taxation is implicitly supported by the constitution, both in the body and by amendment. Not so conscription.

i don't see how a conscript civil service would put peoples life and limb in jeopardy. i seemed to remember to OP talking about a

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.

hmm, non combatant domestic troops. i don't see how it would put peoples life and limb in any more jeopardy than their normal day to day lives.

Ah, I see... so basically we're talking about a time tax on the poor then, eh? Can't pay in money so they'll pay in time? With those in school excluded, it's certain to be that way. Sounds just as bad IMO. Although I do understand that many people have never seen a tax they didn't like, especially if they know that someone else (and not themselves) will be paying.

tax on the poor? shoot, i'd think for many poor this would be a way out. it's 5 yrs of paid service, it's work experience, it can even be apprenticeships.

it's not like the armed forces as it is isn't already made up primarily of the poor.

rich people pay more taxes in money, poor people pay it more in time. that makes sense to me.

 

[montanafan]

Yes, the con side has already discussed the way this draft would effect those from poor families more than others. The pro side is talking about countering with it inspiring those who are not planning on continuing their education beyond high school to consider that as a more appealing alternative to the draft and maybe getting them more interested in education, grades, and working toward scholarships or seeking grants and other financial aid for college.

Edit: And yes, as PlatinumGold has said, a way to get the kids from poor families a better start.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 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?

Hardly. Taxation does not put an individual in jeopardy of life and limb. And taxation is implicitly supported by the constitution, both in the body and by amendment. Not so conscription.

i don't see how a conscript civil service would put peoples life and limb in jeopardy. i seemed to remember to OP talking about a

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.

hmm, non combatant domestic troops. i don't see how it would put peoples life and limb in any more jeopardy than their normal day to day lives.

Ah, I see... so basically we're talking about a time tax on the poor then, eh? Can't pay in money so they'll pay in time? With those in school excluded, it's certain to be that way. Sounds just as bad IMO. Although I do understand that many people have never seen a tax they didn't like, especially if they know that someone else (and not themselves) will be paying.

tax on the poor? shoot, i'd think for many poor this would be a way out. it's 5 yrs of paid service, it's work experience, it can even be apprenticeships.

it's not like the armed forces as it is isn't already made up primarily of the poor.

rich people pay more taxes in money, poor people pay it more in time. that makes sense to me.

If it is to be as great as you say, then why should it be made mandatory? Wouldn't people flock to volunteer? This make no sense whatsoever until your last sentence, where it become obvious where you true sentiments lie.

Let us be clear. A "time tax" is slavery. At best, it is what we do to convicted criminals. Your argument, at best, is that this treatment of enslaving the youth of our lower classes and treating them like criminals is necessary because it would be for their own good. Pardon me while I say you disgust me.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 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?

Hardly. Taxation does not put an individual in jeopardy of life and limb. And taxation is implicitly supported by the constitution, both in the body and by amendment. Not so conscription.

i don't see how a conscript civil service would put peoples life and limb in jeopardy. i seemed to remember to OP talking about a

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.

hmm, non combatant domestic troops. i don't see how it would put peoples life and limb in any more jeopardy than their normal day to day lives.

Ah, I see... so basically we're talking about a time tax on the poor then, eh? Can't pay in money so they'll pay in time? With those in school excluded, it's certain to be that way. Sounds just as bad IMO. Although I do understand that many people have never seen a tax they didn't like, especially if they know that someone else (and not themselves) will be paying.

tax on the poor? shoot, i'd think for many poor this would be a way out. it's 5 yrs of paid service, it's work experience, it can even be apprenticeships.

it's not like the armed forces as it is isn't already made up primarily of the poor.

rich people pay more taxes in money, poor people pay it more in time. that makes sense to me.

If it is to be as great as you say, then why should it be made mandatory? Wouldn't people flock to volunteer? This make no sense whatsoever until your last sentence, where it become obvious where you true sentiments lie.

Let us be clear. A "time tax" is slavery. At best, it is what we do to convicted criminals. Your argument, at best, is that this treatment of enslaving the youth of our lower classes and treating them like criminals is necessary because it would be for their own good. Pardon me while I say you disgust me.

hahahaha

hey, it wasn't my idea, i was just responding to the OP. he asked for PROS and CONS to the argument. you took the con side so i took the pro side. but if you read above, i also posted a very serious con side as well.

i think you just need to take a chill pill.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
hahahaha

hey, it wasn't my idea, i was just responding to the OP. he asked for PROS and CONS to the argument. you took the con side so i took the pro side. but if you read above, i also posted a very serious con side as well.

i think you just need to take a chill pill.

Heh. I know how to debate. Perhaps you've never heard of the value of dramatic rhetoric?

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
hahahaha

hey, it wasn't my idea, i was just responding to the OP. he asked for PROS and CONS to the argument. you took the con side so i took the pro side. but if you read above, i also posted a very serious con side as well.

i think you just need to take a chill pill.

Heh. I know how to debate. Perhaps you've never heard of the value of dramatic rhetoric?

lightening the mood with laughter is a lot more effective. it makes the dramatic one look like a drama queen.

 

[montanafan]

Vic, though the con side could not use your argument verbatim because they are graded on decorum and showing respect for the other team , you do bring up a good point that they could use about making the program voluntary instead of mandatory.

PlatinumGold, I noted the con argument you made and appreciate both sides.

You guys can see why most of the students enjoy these debates though once they get into them. They start out thinking about how much they hate public speaking, but then really get into the topics and trying to win the argument and beat the other team.

Edit: Hey and dramatic rhetoric can get them points for enthusiasm and presentation style.

 

[Phoenix86]

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.

What is the legal value behind "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." While I understand your argument, is there legal basis for it?

 

[DrPizza]

Point: look at the physical sciences and mathematics fields...
Some of the greatest innovations come from those in their early 20's
The peak in people's careers in those fields where they make their most significant contributions to the fields is generally early in their life, not later. By entering these people into the military, rather than have these geniuses pursue and advance in their fields, would slow down the rate of growth of technological innovations in the U.S.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Point: look at the physical sciences and mathematics fields...
Some of the greatest innovations come from those in their early 20's
The peak in people's careers in those fields where they make their most significant contributions to the fields is generally early in their life, not later. By entering these people into the military, rather than have these geniuses pursue and advance in their fields, would slow down the rate of growth of technological innovations in the U.S.

The increase of people entering science fields should increase because of the program. It's designed to employ/educate more people than the status quo.

You assume they wouldn't make these same discoveries in the government programs.

It's civil service, not military.

Some of the greatest scientific discoveries are made because of the military.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

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.

What is the legal value behind "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." While I understand your argument, is there legal basis for it?

Amendment V:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

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.

What is the legal value behind "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." While I understand your argument, is there legal basis for it?

Amendment V:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

Would this be covered by due process? IE a law, or is that only courts?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86
Would this be covered by due process? IE a law, or is that only courts?

That law implies the courts. The military draft was upheld though, so who knows?

 

[her209]

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 if this is assumed to be true, then would outlawing "assisted suicide" by the state be a violation of the individual?

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Point: look at the physical sciences and mathematics fields...
Some of the greatest innovations come from those in their early 20's
The peak in people's careers in those fields where they make their most significant contributions to the fields is generally early in their life, not later. By entering these people into the military, rather than have these geniuses pursue and advance in their fields, would slow down the rate of growth of technological innovations in the U.S.

uhhh, genius, how about reading the OP before responding to it. he specifically said conscript service unless you go to college.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: her209

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 if this is assumed to be true, then would outlawing "assisted suicide" by the state be a violation of the individual?

Outlawing suicide itself would be a violation no question. A person's life is his/her own. Assisted suicide is questionable. Just how much assistance are we talking about? Euthanasia OTOH is state-mandated murder.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
uhhh, genius, how about reading the OP before responding to it. he specifically said conscript service unless you go to college.

Which actually would be one of my biggest criticisms. If this is to even pretend to be fair, it should be for everyone, not just those who can't afford college or wish to immediately enter one of the trades.