Personal tools
 
Views

Debate: Military draft

From Debatepedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 18:49, 5 September 2009 (edit)
Lenkahabetinova (Talk | contribs)
(editing a "no" argument)
← Previous diff
Revision as of 19:06, 5 September 2009 (edit)
Lenkahabetinova (Talk | contribs)
(arguments against)
Next diff →
Line 32: Line 32:
*'''A military draft is reflective of an oppressive government.''' A government becomes oppressive under the following two conditions: (1)''when a government infringes upon the rights of individuals'' (2)''when a government has rights that the citizens themselves do not have'' A military draft meets both these conditions; it infringes upon an individual's right to consent, and the citizens themselves do not have the right to draft others, so the government demanding military service of these individuals would be imposing a double standard. *'''A military draft is reflective of an oppressive government.''' A government becomes oppressive under the following two conditions: (1)''when a government infringes upon the rights of individuals'' (2)''when a government has rights that the citizens themselves do not have'' A military draft meets both these conditions; it infringes upon an individual's right to consent, and the citizens themselves do not have the right to draft others, so the government demanding military service of these individuals would be imposing a double standard.
 +*'''Conscription can be used as a tool to control and re-educate the population.''' Military service is based on discipline and obeying orders thus dictators can use it as a tool to instill obedience. Hence most of the undemocratic states use conscription. (China, Cuba, North Korea...) Almost every dictatorship in the past relied on conscription. (Soviet Union, communist dictatorships)
|- |-
|WRITE CONTENT FOR THE "NO" BOX ABOVE THIS CODE colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top: 0.5em ;"| |WRITE CONTENT FOR THE "NO" BOX ABOVE THIS CODE colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top: 0.5em ;"|
Line 71: Line 72:
====No==== ====No====
*'''Conscription creates numbers but not quality.''' Conscription means purchasing and maintaining lots of "unnecessary" equipment for people who - most probably - will never fight in any conflict and if they indeed did, they wouldn't be as useful as professional soldiers and professional armies due to the lack of training (one or two years of military service are not enough). It is economically wiser to have a smaller, well-equipped professional army than millions of soldiers lacking weapons, transporters and experience, to say the least. *'''Conscription creates numbers but not quality.''' Conscription means purchasing and maintaining lots of "unnecessary" equipment for people who - most probably - will never fight in any conflict and if they indeed did, they wouldn't be as useful as professional soldiers and professional armies due to the lack of training (one or two years of military service are not enough). It is economically wiser to have a smaller, well-equipped professional army than millions of soldiers lacking weapons, transporters and experience, to say the least.
 +
 +*'''Subtracting from the productivity of the economy.''' Draft is not economically favourable because it is the most fit young men who - instead of working - join the army. Men are "taken away from their civilian work, and away from contributing to the economy which funds the military. This is not a problem in an agrarian or pre-industrialized state where the level of education is universally low, and where a worker is easily replaced by another. However, this proves extremely problematic in a post-industrial society where educational levels are high and where the work force is highly sophisticated and a replacement for a conscripted specialist is difficult to find. Even direr economic consequences result if the professional conscripted as an amateur soldier is killed or maimed for life; his work effort and productivity is irrevocably lost.Additionally, their training is costly and in some countries these men are even paid for the service." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription]
 +
 +*'''Unwilling conscripts are inefficient.'''
|- |-
|WRITE CONTENT FOR THE "NO" BOX ABOVE THIS CODE colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top: 0.5em ;"| |WRITE CONTENT FOR THE "NO" BOX ABOVE THIS CODE colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top: 0.5em ;"|
Line 78: Line 83:
*[[Debate:Resolved: That military conscription is a superior alternative to a voluntary army.]] *[[Debate:Resolved: That military conscription is a superior alternative to a voluntary army.]]
==External links== ==External links==
- +*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription]
|} |}

Revision as of 19:06, 5 September 2009

Is a military draft generally a good thing to have in place at all times?

Background and context

Should a government have the right to draft its citizens into military service?

Yes

  • Conscription does not infringe upon anybody's rights. Conscription is not harmful and does not infringe upon anybody's rights and freedoms as there usually are ways to avoid joining the military training (e.g. if you work in a hospital instead).
  • Military draft improves safety and rights of all citizens. Conscription means that at the time of a military conflict state has enough trained troops, therefore the security of that state is enhanced - a benefit every citizen can enjoy.

No

  • A military draft is reflective of an oppressive government. A government becomes oppressive under the following two conditions: (1)when a government infringes upon the rights of individuals (2)when a government has rights that the citizens themselves do not have A military draft meets both these conditions; it infringes upon an individual's right to consent, and the citizens themselves do not have the right to draft others, so the government demanding military service of these individuals would be imposing a double standard.
  • Conscription can be used as a tool to control and re-educate the population. Military service is based on discipline and obeying orders thus dictators can use it as a tool to instill obedience. Hence most of the undemocratic states use conscription. (China, Cuba, North Korea...) Almost every dictatorship in the past relied on conscription. (Soviet Union, communist dictatorships)

Is it necessary for a state's security to practice conscription?

Yes

Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here

No

  • At the time when countries all around the globe are becoming members of military organizations such as NATO, at the time when countries are signing treaties concerning military cooperation and support should a country need protection, the concept of keeping a national army is becoming obsolete. There is no need for a specific country to introduce or practice conscription as long as it is protected by professional armies of its allies (or by a professional army of its own).

Can the conscription benefit the society?

Yes

  • In the military, young men acquire many skills for everyday life. These include first aid, driving an ambulance, extra practice for surgeons, etc.) that might be beneficial either to their own careers, or in cases of emergency to everyone as these skills are transferable.

No

Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here

Is the conscription economically favourable?

Yes

No

  • Conscription creates numbers but not quality. Conscription means purchasing and maintaining lots of "unnecessary" equipment for people who - most probably - will never fight in any conflict and if they indeed did, they wouldn't be as useful as professional soldiers and professional armies due to the lack of training (one or two years of military service are not enough). It is economically wiser to have a smaller, well-equipped professional army than millions of soldiers lacking weapons, transporters and experience, to say the least.
  • Subtracting from the productivity of the economy. Draft is not economically favourable because it is the most fit young men who - instead of working - join the army. Men are "taken away from their civilian work, and away from contributing to the economy which funds the military. This is not a problem in an agrarian or pre-industrialized state where the level of education is universally low, and where a worker is easily replaced by another. However, this proves extremely problematic in a post-industrial society where educational levels are high and where the work force is highly sophisticated and a replacement for a conscripted specialist is difficult to find. Even direr economic consequences result if the professional conscripted as an amateur soldier is killed or maimed for life; his work effort and productivity is irrevocably lost.Additionally, their training is costly and in some countries these men are even paid for the service." [1]
  • Unwilling conscripts are inefficient.

See also

External links

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.