Should all young adults in the US be required to serve a year of national service?
The Franklin Project envisions a future in which a year of full-time national service—a service year—is a cultural expectation, a common opportunity, and a civic rite of passage for every young American.
We are leading the effort to improve citizenship by giving every young person in America the opportunity to serve. Sometime between the ages of 18 and 28, the young person would do a fully paid, full-time year of service in one of an array of areas, including health, poverty, conservation, or education. These young people will not only do good work and solve problems, but they will also become better young Americans.
Learn more about the Franklin Project www.franklinproject.org.
Yes
Side Score: 31
|
 |
No
Side Score: 27
|
|
|
|
|
"Should all young adults in the US be required to serve a year of national service?" Yes. The benefits are both obvious and numerous for the young adults. The Franklin Project seems to be voluntary, which would not reach the most needy poor in our inner cities any more effectively than our military opportunity already does. Still there are apparently more young people already willing to serve than can be accommodated by existing programs. So the FP would help. Side: Yes
2
points
Yes, definitely. There should be an array of topics to choose from (like what the Franklin Project says), as opposed to required combat service, and it should apply to men and women. Not only would this help create a binding cultural force but it would help ensure that young adults who enter the workforce have skills necessary for them to get a job. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
Value in societal contribution, discipline and the ability to adhere to structured authority, the ability to work in a cohesive team, and that's just from the st straw man you created, let alone skills that could be obtained from legitimate service in things such as the Army Corps of Engineers, a national Medical Care service (Note: I am not saying socialized medicine), or other such organizations. Side: Yes
If that national service was something other than armed forces then yes, also it would have to be something in this country not abroad. I think young people in the USA today are in need of lessons only learned by interacting with a wide variety of people and situations and many levels of society. Only then will they truly be ready to lead our country into the future. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
I think any group should expect help from those who wish to have the benefits of membership. This goes for countries, businesses churches..any type of social institution. That said. In the US, the way we demand "national service" is by taxing adults (not just young ones) btw we expect more than one year :) Side: Yes
1
point
You are way off base. Businesses are not social institutions; churches are not social institutions. They are private institutions, whose membership is personally motivated and does not require equal participation of its members. I would NEVER sign on to a year of government mandated enslavement. Side: No
1
point
1
point
not all of this necessarily represents my opinion, but i see it as a necessary question to ask in conjunction with the debate title. many people disagree with conscription in other countries, despite the army being a patriotic symbol to the us and being an (arguably) necessary presence. a year of national service is very similar, only it is publically seen as for a good cause (although so is the army), but does any cause justify any period of mandatory service? if so, what supplements justify it? this could also be applied to mandatory schooling or taxation it does seem a little hypocritical Side: Yes
1
point
I think the draft should be implemented for both men and women from the ages of 18 to 55 and require 1 to 1 1/2 years service in a military capacity, or general national service. That way you can help insure that all have/will contribute to our overall national wellness. So if they later avail themselves of the many social welfare programs, at least they've given something already. Many counties already require some sort of "voluntary" service. Side: Yes
0
points
Yes, of course! Yes, of course! Yes, of course! Yes, of course! Yes, of course! Yes, of course! Yes, of course! Yes, of course! Yes, of course! Yes, of course! Yes, of course! Yes, of course! Yes, of course! Yes, of course! Yes, of course! Yes, of course! Yes, of course! Yes, of course! Yes, of course! Yes, of course! Yes, of course! Yes, of course! Yes, of course! Yes, of course! Yes, of course! Yes, of course! Yes, of course! Yes, of course! Yes, of course! Yes, of course! Side: Yes
|
Mandatory service constitutes an ineffectual excess of authority over the lives of individual persons. While there is a compelling interest in fostering greater mutual investment and civic mindedness in a given population, a means to that ends must necessarily be evaluated not only on its ability to achieve that end but on the costs it incurs when doing so. Mandatory service does not teach civic minded mutual investment as a principle or personal value, but as an obligation. Rather than fostering a pro-social disposition internally it imposes it externally as a burden, to the ultimate detriment of civics. Further, imposing a mandatory year of service can interrupt education/career/other pursuits for young persons at a critical juncture in their livelihoods. Taking a year out at any point can be a setback, financially and otherwise. I support civic promotion and involvement, but I see no reason that one must sacrifice their own stability and success in order to pursue it. Side: No
Jace... It's been too long x_x Mandatory service does not teach civic minded mutual investment as a principle or personal value, but as an obligation. Rather than fostering a pro-social disposition internally it imposes it externally as a burden, to the ultimate detriment of civics. Mandatory service does not teach civic minded mutual investment as a principle or personal value, but as an obligation. Rather than fostering a pro-social disposition internally it imposes it externally as a burden, to the ultimate detriment of civics. I'm don't think that this can actually be proven or disproven yet. We would need an example of either a real social science experiment or "national service" program to better understand the implications. Further, imposing a mandatory year of service can interrupt education/career/other pursuits for young persons at a critical juncture in their livelihoods. Taking a year out at any point can be a setback, financially and otherwise. I support civic promotion and involvement, but I see no reason that one must sacrifice their own stability and success in order to pursue it. Ideally, only if we let it. For example, the draft US draft tended to select single men without dependent members of a household who had either not gone to college, or possibly completed their education already. Adjustments and accommodations are totally possible. Overall, I'm ambivalent about adopting the program. Side: Yes
I'm don't think that this can actually be proven or disproven yet. We would need an example of either a real social science experiment or "national service" program to better understand the implications. I suspect there is adequate research on the matter to advance a more substantiated view, but similarly to yourself this issue is not especially pressing to my interest. I do, however, think that I advanced an argument beyond casual speculation as I accompanied my view with a rationalization as to why we might expect the outcome I indicated as probable (i.e. externally and involuntarily imposed motivations supplant/limit/ignore the development of internally derived motivation). Ideally, only if we let it. For example, the draft US draft tended to select single men without dependent members of a household who had either not gone to college, or possibly completed their education already. Adjustments and accommodations are totally possible. The draft is hardly a shining example of imposed civic duty done right; draft dodging and other resistance was quite notable to say the least. Besides which, without uniformity it seems to me that the program would be advancing on even more tenuous grounds as it would not be creating a uniform sense of civic duty (assuming it could create that sense to begin with) if there were predominantly class based exceptions. I recognize there was some delay in this reply; feel free to respond or ignore as you prefer. Side: Yes
Further, imposing a mandatory year of service can interrupt education/career/other pursuits for young persons at a critical juncture in their livelihoods. Taking a year out at any point can be a setback, financially and otherwise. I support civic promotion and involvement, but I see no reason that one must sacrifice their own stability and success in order to pursue it. Since it does not have to be military service, it does not have to disrupt a person's life. Plenty of individuals already manage to do local community service while maintaining a normal life. Side: Yes
Structurally speaking, a national service program would have far more in common with military service than it would with voluntary community service. It would be more structured and regulated, with less flexibility and adaptability than occurs within the context of volunteerism. Even if we assume rather against reason that the program would not be more rigid and demanding than with average volunteerism, its compulsory nature would necessarily include people who are not volunteering because they quite simply cannot afford the time off (or at least not without considerable personal inconvenience). Side: Yes
i disagree...many young ppl are LOOKING for a way to serve their country without necessarily killing someone with brown skin to do it. the is nothing here that goes against the value of freedom... in fact, most aware ppl realize that freedom must be EARNED, every generation. when its not, it is taken for granted...and WASTED. Side: Yes
they take everything now they want to take your life?where is the choice in the land of the free?they(government) has way to much Control already.people that say yes want to give them more?fight for them while they destroy everything with their unreachable promises.they call vets terrorist now.is that what you want them to call all Americans?the world hates us for our 1000+ bases all over the world to control them.Americans cant even control their own government but want to control everyone else.its all greed and deception,control and its destroying this once great country! Side: No
wow... ok, one thing at a time. they take everything now... who does? ...now they want to take your life? how is 1yr of service = to your entire life? where is the choice in the land of the free? there would be all manner of choices... what's wrong with choices? they(government)... i guess that clears that part up...i would remind you that WE are the government ...has(sic) way to(sic) much Control already how is that now? in what way is the gubmnt controlling you now? thru your fillings? . . . defender, is that you, sovereign citizen? Side: Yes
government-taxes by force the worth of your paper (inflation).what if they send you to war (thats all america makes)you want to force them to serve there is no choice.lol we are the government .thats funny .how many are in jail from the 2008 meltdown .from the people who admitted they manipulated the stock market..0 is the ansawer.what way do they control me ..better yet what way dont they with their fiat money and double standers.with the 1000s of new laws each year also.if you think anyone is sovereign in this country you are sadly mistaken. Obama’s Executive 13528 The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 – which EO 13528 clearly subverts — bars the use of the military for civilian law enforcement. For years Bush tried to accomplish the same thing, especially after his administration’s criminal in actions during the 2005 Hurricane Katrina disaster.the UN is coming if they are not already here.better yet look up the meaning of these words "Ces tui Qui Trust"i defend better yet i Cant defend anyone but myself Admiralty/Maritime law, Common law and the Sovereign
Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
0
points
Translation, we the corrupt Government that has bankrupted our nation with 18 trillion in debt to buy your votes, will now force all Americans to take indoctrination courses on how to become good little Socialist Liberals. We have tried to indoctrinate the majority of kids through the Liberal media and public schools, censoring any mention of our Christian heritage or moral values that go contrary to our new enlightened collective, but it is taking just too long. We must speed up the indoctrination of Progressive thought and will now try to mandate ALL AMERICANS to go through proper Progressive training, or in other words, the thought police! If you refuse to take our year of progressive training, we will come down on you with all the power of the IRS. They will be the ones in charge of your service, and will levy fines and taxes if you refuse.(more money for our bloated corrupt Government) Now you tell me, have you ever seen the arrogance of people who put their faith in a proven corrupt Government? These fools are beyond help. We need to get back to SMALLER Government when America was great and did not resdistribute our money to garner votes. Now if these fools would actually force people who are living off the tax payers to serve our communities to pay back all that they have taken, THEN you would get my support! Side: No
2
points
Now you tell me, have you ever seen the arrogance of people who put their faith in a proven corrupt Government? These fools are beyond help. Haha, you just described yourself dumb ass. You have put your faith in fixing a corrupt government that you are already a part of. Side: Yes
|
