CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Conscription or Voluntary Service?
Should we have a draft, we some may deem as involuntary servitude, or should we have a service that is completelt voluntary? Which suits a nations military better?
So what if there lives are at stake or the country they live in may be obliterated dude? Don't we need some emergency back up?
That is why people arm themselves and learn how to use those arms.
It is funny how wars are always started by some ruling class Authority, whether a monarch, oligarch, etc. a.k.a "governments" of each of the countries fighting. Then, young men and women from those lands are sent to destroy and slaughter each other; they do not even stop to think about what they are doing, they just obey that authority.
As for obliteration, well so many countries have hundreds of nuclear warheads; including the U.S. military. And it does not take much too push a button and boooom!!! That is is the end of the BS.
In other words, a standing army would be irrelevant. Personally, I would take my chances fighting on the ground and if I get shot, I can have respect for my enemy enough that hopefully if his bullet has my name on it he hits me in the forehead and that is it. The former scenario, well, I do not care to think about; it is not death that I fear, but the long drawn out misery and degree of misery I am put through I would rather do with out.
So what if there lives are at stake or the country they live in may be obliterated dude? Don't we need some emergency back up?
That is why people arm themselves and learn how to use those arms.
It is funny how wars are always started by some ruling class Authority, whether a monarch, oligarch, etc. a.k.a "governments" of each of the countries fighting. Then, young men and women from those lands are sent to destroy and slaughter each other; they do not even stop to think about what they are doing, they just obey that authority.
As for obliteration, well so many countries have hundreds of nuclear warheads; including the U.S. military. And it does not take much too push a button and boooom!!! That is is the end of the BS.
In other words, a standing army would be irrelevant. Personally, I would take my chances fighting on the ground and if I get shot, I can have respect for my enemy enough that hopefully if his bullet has my name on it he hits me in the forehead and that is it. The former scenario, well, I do not care to think about; it is not death that I fear, but the long drawn out misery and degree of misery I am put through I would rather do with out.
In other words, a standing army would be irrelevant.
Dude, it makes you more powerful. If people aren't going to go through the government training and get government weapons and vehicles how can you even strategize? How can you win?
As for obliteration, well so many countries have hundreds of nuclear warheads; including the U.S. military. And it does not take much too push a button and boooom!!! That is is the end of the BS.
I see. That would totally end everything dude but other countries would probably fire back and try to wipe the planet clean.
That is why people arm themselves and learn how to use those arms.
They won't have any F-22s or any RPGs or Missiles or Tanks or Good Radar systems or military training and all that stuff. The enemy can fly by in a WWII plane and kill many people. We wouldn't even know it.
It is funny how wars are always started by some ruling class Authority, whether a monarch, oligarch, etc. a.k.a "governments" of each of the countries fighting. Then, young men and women from those lands are sent to destroy and slaughter each other; they do not even stop to think about what they are doing, they just obey that authority.
I think they do. America fought for independence. I think the Korean War was to quell communism, maybe I am not sure, same thing for Vietnam. We fight for a reason. Countries just dont go to war for no reason. I am positive the population would be aware of the situation.
Personally, I would take my chances fighting on the ground and if I get shot, I can have respect for my enemy enough that hopefully if his bullet has my name on it he hits me in the forehead and that is it. The former scenario, well, I do not care to think about; it is not death that I fear, but the long drawn out misery and degree of misery I am put through I would rather do with out.
I am very positive your guns will not stop people who have missiles and amazing aircrafts. Even war on the sea would be much harder to win. We need a standing army.
Fyi: I'm typing this on a hand held device and so I won't be going point by point but I will do my best to cover your main points.
I said many countries have nuclear weapons and if fired upon each other then there would be massive death and destruction. Any involved would face this; there is no cleaning the planet. Much of it would be uninhabitable.
Conscription is morally wrong as is any involuntary servitude that is forced on a person; save convicted criminals and that is debatable.
I am opposed to a standing army for a multitude of reasons. However, it is in place and I understand the support. Yet the Swiss do not have it but they all are armed. They have not been invaded as far as I know. That doesn't negate need of defense plans and contingency strategies.
A standing army serves those with power and control in mind, but you do not see them fight; they give orders and recieve blind obedience. No, thanks. If such people who seek power want to attempt it on me or my family then let them show up and try it; they can find out what war is.
Imagine if no one followed Hitlers orders, what could he have done?
This debate is about individual rights vs. the effectiveness of a Voluntary Service.
The fact that the country one lives in is about to explode isn't an argument against individual rights. It also doesn't demonstrate that a Voluntary Service would be ineffective.
I posted to inform you that you didn't address the debate topic, and that your post is of absolutely no use or value. Please provide an argument, don't just assert we will need Conscription because Voluntary Service will fail.
This debate is about individual rights vs. the effectiveness of a Voluntary Service
This is the true title: Consription or Voluntary Service.
Thats not whatever you just said.
The fact that the country one lives in is about to explode isn't an argument against individual rights. It also doesn't demonstrate that a Voluntary Service would be ineffective.
My posts were hinting at the fact that we need a standing army which he other user seemed to identify but you didnt. I am not big on rights. I am more focused on a standing army and if no one joins we make them join.
I posted to inform you that you didn't address the debate topic, and that your post is of absolutely no use or value.
So how did the other user form a logical argument then? Obviously its of worth if you responded. It must be if that other user debated against me. I am in favor for conscription. I said we need it if necessary. Thats a normal low class argument. Dont try to make me form an entire new one just because you failed to identify it. Do you think we should have a standing army? Are you going to answer that or just post more rubbish with your "high sounding rhetoric". This will be fun becaue I am higher than a space shuttle so bring it.
Should we have a draft, we some may deem as involuntary servitude, or should we have a service that is completelt voluntary?
This is the description of the debate, the debate is about involuntary servitude "rights" vs. the risk of a voluntary Service.
My posts were hinting at the fact that we need a standing army
You can hint all you like, you cannot just assert something is true, the point of a debate it to provide arguments for something's truth.
So how did the other user form a logical argument then?
Even in an extreme situation it is immoral to force people to risk their lives fighting for a cause they may or may no believe in.
Immoral can be equivocated with the position supporting personal rights. People dying for something they don't believe in is an argument to support his position. I am making no claim as to the validity of any position. You did not provide an argument because your claim is based on the unfounded assertion that a Voluntary Service is incapable of doing the job, and Conscription is needed, which is just begging the question. (You are eliminating one of the two options by default without providing justification.) GuitaristDog's post provided me with something to consider, yours did not.
Do you think we should have a standing army?
I don't know yet, I saw this debate and thought it would be a good opportunity to learn the opposing positions, instead I found posts like yours with no argument within them at all. They do not help make your point, no one has have been convinced because someone didn't make an argument, that is why your post is of absolutely no use or value.
Are you going to answer that or just post more rubbish with your "high sounding rhetoric".
It's pretty simple, you made an assertion, you failed to follow it with a supporting argument. This isn't an issue I have give much thought to, I am here to learn.
This is the description of the debate, the debate is about involuntary servitude "rights" vs. the risk of a voluntary Service.
Still wrong. Here is the true description.
Should we have a draft, some may deem as involuntary servitude (forced labor), or should we have a service that is completely voluntary? What suits a nations military better?
You are just being weird now, and since you have to use such big words now I have to give it a try.
You can hint all you like, you cannot just assert something is true, the point of a debate it to provide arguments for something's truth.
Did I ever proclaim that what I posted above was the truth? No.
You did not provide an argument because your claim is based on the unfounded assertion that a Voluntary Service is incapable of doing the job, and Conscription is needed, which is just begging the question.
My claim to the question "Should we have the draft?": I would say conscription only if it is extremely necessary. Like if you have little to no soldiers.
I gave my opinionated answer to the question. Nowhere did it require anything more. So I have no idea why you are blowing you top.
GuitaristDog's post provided me with something to consider, yours did not.
Well thats not the guy I was talking about and even GuitaristDog formed an argument from mine. You couldn't which is sad. If he can do it so can you.
I don't know yet, I saw this debate and thought it would be a good opportunity to learn the opposing positions, instead I found posts like yours with no argument within them at all. They do not help make your point, no one has have been convinced because someone didn't make an argument, that is why your post is of absolutely no use or value.
You are supposed to try and answer the question or support, dispute, or clarify another's argument. Why can't you just do that and answer my question?
It's pretty simple, you made an assertion, you failed to follow it with a supporting argument. This isn't an issue I have give much thought to, I am here to learn.
Yeah. So am I and you are being all weird. You say my argument has zero value but GuitaristDog formed an argument anyways meaning it has value. Dude. Just argue. I don't need you to critique my argument. Just give your opinion. Can you at least do that?
Did I ever proclaim that what I posted above was the truth? No.
You posted it as a response to a successfully crafted argument, if you did not intend for it to support your position then I don't know what you are doing here.
If he can do it so can you.
If I crafted an argument it would be as empty as yours. I do not a have a position, I'm still gathering data. Maybe if you did this you could back up your claims rather than define the need for Conscription into existence.
You are supposed to try and answer the question or support, dispute, or clarify another's argument.
I'm trying to clarify your argument, you seem to think that was one, I was informing you that you didn't make an argument, and you should try again.
I would say conscription only if it is extremely necessary. Like if you have little to no soldiers.
So your position is that if Voluntary Service doesn't work, then conscription should be used. That is equivocal with stating. "If option one doesn't work, lets use option two." It says nothing about the validity of the options.
My entire argument is me just saying if one fails then two should be used meaning that I want the draft to remain present. Do you understand now?
Yes, you have asserted that the correct first choice is Voluntary Service, then if that fails the draft can be a fallback.
All you have done is picked on option over another, without giving a reason. That position doesn't help anyone understand this issue because it is just your opinion, and you haven't even tried to defend it.
OMG will you just fucking post an argument so I can argue? If not move the fuck on I am tried of this dude. The debate question is "Should we have the draft". I say yes we should have it. Pretty much how it is in todays society. Now if you wont just argue I am just going to look somewhere else because everybody else, but you, was able to post an argument with having to heavily criticize me or have my argument become "perfect" just to debate.
I welcome you to go though my debates or arguments and challenge me on one. I have many opinions that most won't agree with, so it wouldn't be hard to find one you like. If you can't, or if you don't want to take the time to look feel free to challenge me to a debate, I will gladly take any position on any topic of debate. All I ask is that I get one sentence in the description to state if this is my actually opinion and whether I would view what I say to be worth reading by someone unfamiliar with the issue.
I think some time in the armed forces helps a person mature and figure themselves out a little more. There are stark realities that most people don't want to think about, too. It's good for the individual.
Currently we don't need a draft. There is no war, and there are a plentiful amount of men and women joining. Even if there was a war, I don't think a draft would be fair. I was just born in this country, it's not like I love it or anything, I'm just a citizen who just doesn't feel like moving. I wouldn't want to fight for this country, if I absolutely had to choose between defending it, or moving, I'd move, since it doesn't matter one way or the other to me.
I would say conscription but some people say the government shouldn't be able to do that. This sounds more natural. If you wish to fight you can. If not you will never be forced to.
If it is within the bounds of the U.S. Constitution(not likely) it would be a voluntary service, by the 13th Amendment. To me it seemed contradictory when I volunteered and my father still went with me to make sure I registered for the draft. I was told that is a requirement. It is bogus, though, but I still sent it in.
Besides if there is an immediate need, like invasion or something, people would likely take up arms; that is what a civilian militia really is. If congress declares war and determines the military numbers are down, they need to convince people too join; this makes them prove that it is warranted. People will join if they believe there is just cause, like with 9/11. The numbers soared as is typically the case in this countries history.
