|
I am a huge debate nerd. Well not HUGE, but I like debate, and I was pretty mad when I did not make states last year. For those of you who are good at debate I am sure your thinking "What kind of loser doesn't make states" Well...my kind of loser. Er...that is if anyone does debate.
Anyways I do Lincoln Douglas, and a friend of mine wants to debate over the summer. We are debating over one of the ten possible topics for next year, "Resolved: Military conscription is unjust" I am the negative. Basically I am trying to prove that military conscription is just. So far I'm trying to use a "Social Contract" argument to show that people have an obligation to protect their society. What I want to know is
1. Are there other ways to show that conscription is just other than by showing that people have an obligation to protect society?
2. Are there more effective ways to prove a persons obligation than the social contract?
|
If we don't conscript the Nazis will win!
|
If you use a "social contract" argument, you're just begging your opponent to bring up contract theory and specifically the issue of consent.
|
United States24680 Posts
Can you explain the social contract argument? Also be careful... just because you have an obligation to protect society doesn't mean the government will enlist you to protect society.
|
Basically by social contract I mean we as people limit our rights in order to recieve the protection of society. In a state of nature we have unlimited freedoms but only the protection we provide ourselves.
Mindcrime, most people probably wont as they probably have more pressing issues. I mean they would probably stalemate me at best, and waste time they could have used to attack me elsewhere. But I am prepared to argue it. I need to know if there are better ways
|
United States24680 Posts
On July 27 2008 09:16 DamageControL wrote:
Basically by social contract I mean we as people limit our rights in order to recieve the protection of society. In a state of nature we have unlimited freedoms but only the protection we provide ourselves.
Mindcrime, most people probably wont as they probably have more pressing issues. I mean they would probably stalemate me at best, and waste time they could have used to attack me elsewhere. But I am prepared to argue it. I need to know if there are better ways
When did I waive those rights? :-/
This is a topic I don't like discussing to be honest.
|
On July 27 2008 09:20 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2008 09:16 DamageControL wrote:
Basically by social contract I mean we as people limit our rights in order to recieve the protection of society. In a state of nature we have unlimited freedoms but only the protection we provide ourselves.
Mindcrime, most people probably wont as they probably have more pressing issues. I mean they would probably stalemate me at best, and waste time they could have used to attack me elsewhere. But I am prepared to argue it. I need to know if there are better ways When did I waive those rights? :-/ This is a topic I don't like discussing to be honest.
Simply by continuing to be in the society. Sorry, its just something I'm using to try to prove conscription, when done PROPERLY is justified.
|
United States24680 Posts
On July 27 2008 09:23 DamageControL wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2008 09:20 micronesia wrote:On July 27 2008 09:16 DamageControL wrote:
Basically by social contract I mean we as people limit our rights in order to recieve the protection of society. In a state of nature we have unlimited freedoms but only the protection we provide ourselves.
Mindcrime, most people probably wont as they probably have more pressing issues. I mean they would probably stalemate me at best, and waste time they could have used to attack me elsewhere. But I am prepared to argue it. I need to know if there are better ways When did I waive those rights? :-/ This is a topic I don't like discussing to be honest. Simply by continuing to be in the society. Sorry, its just something I'm using to try to prove conscription, when done PROPERLY is justified.
I'm not sure how much you've researched different possible counters and rebuttals to that concept, but I'll just mention a couple of things that come to mind. If 'continuing to be in society' means I've waived the right to have certain freedoms (such as not getting drafted) then society needs to provide a means for me to remove myself from society (which it does not). How can you tell someone 'you have waived your rights because you exist and there is nothing you can do about it'?
|
On July 27 2008 09:29 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2008 09:23 DamageControL wrote:On July 27 2008 09:20 micronesia wrote:On July 27 2008 09:16 DamageControL wrote:
Basically by social contract I mean we as people limit our rights in order to recieve the protection of society. In a state of nature we have unlimited freedoms but only the protection we provide ourselves.
Mindcrime, most people probably wont as they probably have more pressing issues. I mean they would probably stalemate me at best, and waste time they could have used to attack me elsewhere. But I am prepared to argue it. I need to know if there are better ways When did I waive those rights? :-/ This is a topic I don't like discussing to be honest. Simply by continuing to be in the society. Sorry, its just something I'm using to try to prove conscription, when done PROPERLY is justified. I'm not sure how much you've researched different possible counters and rebuttals to that concept, but I'll just mention a couple of things that come to mind. If 'continuing to be in society' means I've waived the right to have certain freedoms (such as not getting drafted) then society needs to provide a means for me to remove myself from society (which it does not). How can you tell someone 'you have waived your rights because you exist and there is nothing you can do about it'?
I've somewhat researched the topic. Let's use the US as an example. The moment you turn 18 you are an adult. Society does not have to say: All right if you want to leave we'll pay for a ticked and you can go.
You leave, and admit that a state of nature is better than society.
|
The main problem with a social contract is that it is an unwritten, nonverbal, and completely unexpressed thing that does not have objectively definable terms. As such, it is impossible to know what the parties consented to, and it is impossible to know who breached the contract first if in fact it was breached.
|
|
|
Why is it just / unjust ~ what conscripted(?) people exactly do?
Do you mean conscription during times of war / natural cataclysms or times of peace?
edit:
Wow man, this is lots of text.
|
I think common good is a nice argument. Conscription is a neccesary evil to assure the safety of an entire nation, in my country of about 40.000.000 people we have conscription to support a 400.000 men military, and nobody complains because we all know that is needed to fight guerrillas and other terrorist to secure safety for all the nation.
|
Don't bring up social contract in an argument about conscription. That's actually retarded. Social theorists who consider the social contract to be real say that the only thing you can't ask a citizen to do, is kill themselves. War isn't a joke, and anyone who is aware of that fact knows that they are putting themselves in harms way. The only reason people go to war is because they believe that if they don't, life as they know it will perish anyway. Conscription has nothing to do with that.
Conscription happens when a population generally agrees that the country needs to go to war, so everyone puts their names in a hat and the unlucky people hold true to their word (or if it's mandatory military service like in South Korea, they know it's only for a few years, and also that the war isn't THAT hot right now, so they're not so worried about their lives). Otherwise you get people deserting, like in Russia during the World War.
That said, I think debate is retarded (school or otherwise). You put two people who have to argue extremely biased points to their wits end, you don't get compromise, and you get lousy solutions. It's better to have a healthy conversation with an open mind than to have your mind made up before you start talking and be forced to continue arguing a point that halfway thru you might admittedly realise is starting to sound pretty stupid, because your goal isn't a search for the truth, it's to win some dumb argument.
|
On July 27 2008 08:09 DamageControL wrote:
I am a huge debate nerd. Well not HUGE, but I like debate, and I was pretty mad when I did not make states last year. For those of you who are good at debate I am sure your thinking "What kind of loser doesn't make states" Well...my kind of loser. Er...that is if anyone does debate.
Anyways I do Lincoln Douglas, and a friend of mine wants to debate over the summer. We are debating over one of the ten possible topics for next year, "Resolved: Military conscription is unjust" I am the negative. Basically I am trying to prove that military conscription is just. So far I'm trying to use a "Social Contract" argument to show that people have an obligation to protect their society. What I want to know is
1. Are there other ways to show that conscription is just other than by showing that people have an obligation to protect society?
2. Are there more effective ways to prove a persons obligation than the social contract?
I don't understand LD or value structure, but from a parliamentary/policy perspective:
1. Think of it from the point of view of statesmanship. People are going to think twice before invading a country with conscription. Further, security for one nation enhances the security of all nations.
2. Military experience is beneficial for citizens. Builds character, etc. etc. Could also be beneficial for education?
3. In most conscription programs, alternatives are available for conscientious objectors. So fuck their disad.
4. Military experience enhances equality. Everybody will share the same experience and whatever benefits there are (ie pay for school, etc.) Basically, since everybody has to do this at least once in their life, it's a equal "starting point" for all, because everyone has the chance to build a career out of it.
5. Military experience reduces crime. Because it builds patriotism, sense of community service, what have you.
6. Military experience enhances a nation's health. Obvious reasons.
I hope you get to states this year. It takes a hell of a lot of hard work, especially in events where you have to prepare evidence. To increase your odds, why don't you also do a platform event? Those IMO are the easiest to place in, if you know how to write or speak well.
|
That said, I think debate is retarded (school or otherwise). You put two people who have to argue extremely biased points to their wits end, you don't get compromise, and you get lousy solutions. It's better to have a healthy conversation with an open mind than to have your mind made up before you start talking and be forced to continue arguing a point that halfway thru you might admittedly realise is starting to sound pretty stupid, because your goal isn't a search for the truth, it's to win some dumb argument.
I agree to a point. The real value of debate isn't in the debates themselves. It's in the obscene hours of preparation and research competitors put in. Debaters have to familiarize themselves with both sides of an issue. It forces them to reexamine a lot of their values. I've seen die hard liberals turn moderate and conservative from doing debate (and vice versa). Also, ask any teacher and they will tell you that competition is an excellent educational tool. I've learned more researching for debate and extemp speaking than in any single class, and a big reason is because I want to win really badly. It's one of the most valuable activities I've ever done.
In regards to your second point:
I think you will have a hard time arguing that each individual is "obligated". I'm not familiar with the philosophical arguments (I rarely run kritiques... and frankly I don't know how to respond to many of them), but my view is that obligations are not justice. Rather, you want to argue why it is just for the government to oblige others. I know that's a little confused, does that make sense?
As for the issue of consent: You're consenting to the social contract every time you take advantage of public goods, because these are only possible because everyone has consented. On matters of national security, you can't just take yourself outside of society, because when the eastern seaboard gets nuked, so does Walden pond. Get my drift? Unless you live on a desert island, you are a part of that social contract.
even more (can you tell I'm a huge debate geek):
On July 27 2008 10:30 CrimsonLotus wrote:
I think common good is a nice argument. Conscription is a neccesary evil to assure the safety of an entire nation, in my country of about 40.000.000 people we have conscription to support a 400.000 men military, and nobody complains because we all know that is needed to fight guerrillas and other terrorist to secure safety for all the nation.
Be careful when making an argument that conscription is good for any one nation. That is most certainly not just. But if you go back to my first point from before, and argue that security for one nation helps enable security for all, then it can be considered just.
Some more points I just thought of:
* Conscription enhances national stability because: a) Conscription enhances citizen loyalty. b) Conscription under one military and one strictly enforced chain of command reduces the odds of dissent.
* Conscription enhances checks on government: a) More "average joe" citizens are involved in the military-industrial complex. b.) Military power can translate to political power. Thus the conscripted masses earn political power through the military.
Obviously, I would not run both of these in tandem.
Also, consider how you define justice. Will your definition of justice be a net benefits kind of calculus, where the just thing is what brings about more good? Or will it depend on absolute morals? And what will those morals be? How can you justify that interpretation of justice?
|
I would argue that you shouldn't need a desire to win to have a thirst for knowledge, and that if you need a debate club to do that, it's a crutch you should learn to overcome.
6. Military experience enhances a nation's health. Obvious reasons.
I didn't really want to get into it, but that makes me laugh. All I have to do is say PTSD, and whatever reasons you thought were obvious (and I truly don't know what they are) need to be weighed against it as pros and cons.
I've seen die hard liberals turn moderate and conservative from doing debate (and vice versa).
How old were they? How could they be so 'diehard' if a little research makes them think "oh fuck, I guess that was retarded after all?" It would seem to suggest they had never done research before, and thus... How could they really be labeled as liberal or conservative on any subject, except for their own personal desire to be called one of the other because of stigmas attached to either?
Ahhh... Debate is so silly 
|
I would argue that you shouldn't need a desire to win to have a thirst for knowledge, and that if you need a debate club to do that, it's a crutch you should learn to overcome.
Who cares what my motivations were if the ends were good? You argument is akin to saying that it's better not to debate even though it's really beneficial, just because it's a competitive event. That's ridiculous. Competition is also beneficial in that it builds self confidence and determination. I specifically use the phrase "educational tool" in describing debate. Just like video presentations or academic clubs can be an educational tool, so is competition. IMO, it's one of the best forms. No teacher could give two shits really whether you think winning is an immoral way to encourage kids to learn, as long they're learning.
How old were they? How could they be so 'diehard' if a little research makes them think "oh fuck, I guess that was retarded after all?" It would seem to suggest they had never done research before, and thus... How could they really be labeled as liberal or conservative on any subject, except for their own personal desire to be called one of the other because of stigmas attached to either?
19-20. Which is exactly the age when people are best capable of forming well backed political opinions. I'd much rather them form a political identity through blood, sweat, and hard research than by the political environment they grew up in.
Naive, inexperienced people like you are silly. You talk as if you were personally more motivated to learn than most debaters. Really, your tone is really condescending. You're not. Most people probably aren't. So don't pretend, please  .
|
19-20. Which is exactly the age when people are best capable of forming well backed political opinions.
LOL
PS: No teacher could give two shits really whether you think winning is an immoral way to encourage kids to learn, as long they're learning.
I wasn't implying it was immoral, I'm implying there's a lot of times you should be thinking for yourself when you don't have anything to debate about. Like say... Everything involving personal relationships.
|
2. Military experience is beneficial for citizens. Builds character, etc. etc. Could also be beneficial for education?
How? When? Have you seen Jarhead?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
