Round 2. Shearder v Souls: National Service

The topic for this debate is "Full citizenship in any nation should require that a person perform military or other useful service for the state for a certain period of time.".

Shearder will be arguing the pro position and will open the debate.
Souls will argue the con position.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.


A post may not be any longer than 5,500 characters, using the ATS character counter.
Closing posts may not be any longer than 3,500 characters.

This character limit includes all board code, links, etc.
Extra characters will be deleted from the end of your post. Please notice that the character counter counts backwards.

Editing is strictly forbidden. This means any editing, for any reason. Any edited posts will be completely deleted. This prevents cheating. If you make an honest mistake which needs fixing, you must U2U me. I will do a limited amount of editing for good cause. Please use spell check before you post.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images, and must have no more than 3 references. Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post.

Responses should be made within 24 hours, if people are late with their replies, they run the risk of forfeiting their reply and possibly the debate. Limited grace periods may be allowed if I am notified in advance.

Each round that a member participates in is worth 1 ranking point in the Debate Forum Challenge Ladder. Winning the final round is worth an additional 1 point.

The Member-Judging System is in effect. The total number of stars awarded to each member by readers (counted at the time of judging) will be counted to determine a winner. Each debate will have one judge. The decision of the judge is worth 5 stars.

We have ways of determining when a member has multiple accounts. Any member who attempts to use multiple accounts to influence the outcome of a debate will be barred from the debate forum in perpetuity and will face additional consequences as well, possibly including a permanent ban from ATS.

"Full citizenship in any nation should require that a person perform military or other useful service for the state for a certain period of time."

In every country there is a daily influx of immigrants, refugees and others. In times of unrest, war, natural disasters, emergency situations etc, who helps or protects the people of a specific country or region? This is typically done by the indigenous people or citizens of those places.

It is beneficial to all, and for the duration of this debate I will refer to the area/s as “country” or “countries,” persons entering a country, of which they are not citizens, to undergo some sort of training in the military or other civil service areas, i.e. emergency medical services.

The reasons are many and are to the benefit of the individuals and the country itself. Imagine a scenario where there is a disaster or war etc and the citizens all go off to help and assist or protect the country as a unified unit – these people who have not been through some sort of training, in an area of national service, will certainly not be able to assist in the same capacity - if at all.

So what does National Service offer these people? Well there are a number of reasons and benefits that these people and, ultimately the country, will gain.

These are:
1. a connection with the people in the community
2. a contribution of time, when volunteering, which will save the country money which would usually be spent on full time or permanent membership to the service/organisation – money that can be spent on more important, or other, community initiatives
3. Skills can be shared between members and new skills learned
4. development of self esteem and an increase in self confidence and confidence of others in the persons new/refined abilities
5. There will be a definite advantage in working and learning with people who are citizens and this will help with integrating into the new society/culture
6. Improve the persons personal resume and open more doors for other jobs and also help to improve and create networking contacts
7. promotion of worthwhile activities and an example to others
8. this will enhance the need people have to feel needed and valued
9. increase life’s experiences and have new more exciting experiences
10. and last, but not least, serve the country they have decided to make home

Having been in the position where I, personally, did national service in the military it also makes one more aware of the people around you and makes one accept others’ differences and also makes one more independent and more able to deal with life in general. One also learns much needed life skills and builds confidence to be able to tackle problems that one would usually shy away from.

I believe the major benefits to being enrolled or volunteering for National Service are the tangible benefits one will immediately have which are satisfaction, pride and a sense of accomplishment and, importantly, a sense of belonging. A person can also get awards, educational and job certifications which can be used in “civilian” life.

Now, if we just forget about the personal gains of doing national service, for a minute, and look at the benefits to the country; we are faced with a situation where the country will be able to deal with crisis better than if there was not a call to these people to do national service.

During times of crisis, whether natural or not, there will be a higher percentage of the country’s population that can assist. It becomes a case where more people can assist rather than more people that need assistance. This will strengthen the country and improve relations between people and the threat of disaster will be less terrifying if people are aware and confident that help will never be far away. There is also a huge economic advantage as less “resources” will be needed for getting external assistance and the sudden need to gather qualified or experienced hands will be made easier and help will be more readily available.

National Service is definitely a must and every country should have a policy where persons entering the country are enrolled into some area in which help is required or, secondly, where they feel they would be most valuable. This does not necessarily mean Military service but some sort of service which can be a benefit to the people of the country.

Unfortunately, we have just stepped in to what may be a never ending struggle of right and wrong. Full citizenship in any nation should not require that a person perform military or other useful service for the state for a period of time because this action does not allow certain individuals to uphold personal goals, morals, beliefs and ideals that conflict with the nature, policy and enforcement of the proposed service. Before we continue, I feel it is important to inform the audience that both the pro position and the con position can be identified as claims of value. As with value claims, the only thing any one side can do is persuade the audience to realize that their position has the most value and that this value outweighs that of the con position, based on personal judgment of the evidence. For clarity, I would also like to point out the fact that my opponent has identified persons of foreign origin entering the country and gaining full citizenship as those to whom this service would only apply. At this point, I'd have to object to the definition because it does not fully identify all the subjects of the stated topic and leaves out the fact that full citizenship also applies to those people who have obtained it by birth right of that country. For the benefit of all, and the duration of the debate, I will ask my opponent to recognize that people who gain full citizenship of any country, can also obtain it through birth, and that he includes people who obtain full citizenship by default in his reference to "country" and "countries" not just those of foreign origin.

National service can be defined as any service provided by an individual, in key vital sectors of the country, in order to assist ones country in time of great need or to prepare for times of great need. This national service can be compulsory or not, but for this debate, it defines itself as involuntary. Within this term of compulsory national service, another is paralleled, which is conscription. Conscription is usually defined as the requirement of citizens within a country to perform military service as a mandatory term of their citizenship. Conscription may also apply to labor of a non militaristic nature that is also not voluntary, being enforced by the laws of the country.

My opponent has provided a list expressing some of the benefits obtained by individuals as a result of serving their perspective country. He has also included a personal account as to how this service has brought benefit to his life, further reinforcing the pro position. What my opponent has failed to see is that all of these examples and benefits do not reflect the possible outcomes to situations pertaining to every single individual, that is specific to that individual, within that specific country. He has failed to take in to consideration the idea that a country's actions might not be correct when judged through the eyes of any given individual. He has failed to consider that time spent on compulsory national service may conflict with any given individual's life goals. He has failed to consider individuals with theistic and non theistic beliefs that conflict with forceful service. He has failed to consider situation x, situation y, and situation z and only considered situation a. This is why full citizenship in any nation should not require that a person perform military or other useful service for the state for some time. With this requirement, rights, beliefs, ideals and other liberties that are held by the citizen, run the risk of being infringed on, if not, completely ignored in exchange for mandatory service. As the debate will progress, I will show how the values of the individuals outweigh the proposed benefits of mandatory national service, and that those perceived benefits can be accomplished without the need of mandated national service.

My opponent has stated:


This is absolutely correct. I believe the topic implies any one NOT born in the country! Simply it can read, “To gain full citizenship one would be required to perform military or other useful service” – think about it - because being indigenous or being born of indigenous parents will automatically qualify the person as a “Full Citizen”. So I don’t believe it was aimed at people born or indigenous to the country. That would be a different debate all together and THAT would be a discussion of conscription which the topic does not indicate.

My Opponent also stated:


I do recognize this and I have to enforce the position that though they are full citizens this debate, in my opinion, does not deal with conscription. I won’t go into that further. Conscription as is typically military service.



That is not an accurate assumption. Part of the topic deals with “other useful service” it doesn't echo “military service” at all. All individuals are different and one will have, as an example, a religious objector etc who, for that specific reason, will not want to serve in the military. A useful service can be serving in hospitals run by the country. It can be in soup kitchens during war or peace. It can be in many areas which serve the community.

With regards to an individual placing their life on hold to be able to deal with having to do military service or OTHER useful service, I am sure would be something that the country would address and possibly have the term broken into more manageable periods.

The country I live in had a system where one would serve an initial period which was between one and two years. There after, one was required to server 30 days a year in that role. However, there were exceptions where a person could be transferred to a different area, i.e. if they had become a religious objector, but still fulfill a role to help the country. Ones work place was aware of the requirement and was factored into the employment system.


My opponent has reinforced my position that the topic is based on NON indigenous people entering the country. A born and bred citizen would not necessarily judge what the country and it’s laws require; if that person did, they would opt for a “service” rather than military. I agree that even a citizen could disagree but would understand the alternatives.


My response 1 “SO WHAT” and 2 “NOT REALLY”.

1 - If they want to live in a specific country they need to know what is required to be able to be a citizen. If they do not want to support their fellow citizens they need to find another country to live in. It is the country that will afford them the possibility to pursue their goals; if that’s why they still live there. The implication is that their life goal can be achieved in that country – right? Or they would have gone else where. So, if “Military or other useful service” is a requirement for a certain period of time for them to be citizens, then they need to abide by the rules of that country.
2 – They can use the time in these services, and not only military, to gain awards, certificates and diplomas etc to help them achieve their goals.



The explicit indication of the topic is Military or OTHER useful service. How can any individual, theist or non-theist, have a conflict, based on beliefs, which will prevent them from serving their fellow citizens in a soup kitchen, hospital or other humane society? They could even serve in Nature conservation.

I do not believe that anyone can disagree, if a country requires an individual to serve the country, whether in a military or other useful role, with some of their time, in order for that person to be acknowledged as a citizen, that it is unreasonable for the country to enforce that.

Benefits, listed above, can be accomplished without national service. I agree! All individuals have values and value systems - the debate is not about values. Regardless of values, other services can cater for those individuals in some way or other.

Don't allow your thoughts to be clouded with value and belief systems. There are services, filled by individuals with different values, which will allow them to serve the state. How does nature conservation impinge on some ones value system unless they hate animals. Then they can work in a state hospital. Values are not valid excuses.

To imply and to state are two different things. The topic at hand does not imply anything, it simply states "Full citizenship in any country..." By this statement, full citizenship applies to those who are of foreign nationality, then entering the country and becoming citizens, and those who are in the country and obtain full citizenship by default. If the topic would state, "Foreign nationals obtaining full citizenship in any country..." or "Nationals obtaining full citizenship in any country" things would be different. Even if one interprets the topic to read "To gain full citizenship one would be required to perform military or other useful service.", it would still not exclude those non foreign nationals who would be seeking full citizenship, i.e. through expatriation or other. Luckily, this is not the case and the topic clearly states "Full citizenship in any country", evidently, not excluding indigenous nationals. To further reinforce the definition, "in" is also included in the topic, signifying nationals already within the country, or that will be within the country. For the continuation of the debate I have come to the realization that the definition of "full citizenship" and to who exactly it applies, is relevant as it will conflict with the understanding of how this national service will apply, and to whom. Mutual understanding of the term is necessary to avoid confusion of the debate.

Let us continue. To summarize, my opponent further states that national service applies to services of a non militaristic nature as well as those that are. National service can be conducted by helping in "soup kitchens", "hospitals", "many areas to serve the community", and or "nature conservation." He has stated that conscription is not relevant in the debate as it mainly deals with military service and does not identify "other useful services". My opponent has assured that a country will take the necessary actions to address the case whenever a conscientious or total objector arises. Another point expressed by my opponent is that citizens of a country would not "necessarily" judge the actions of their country and when there is an objection, other viable alternatives can be quickly adopted by the individual. And finally, my opponent states that the debate has nothing to do with values because "other services" acknowledge those values, excluding them from the debate.

It is very important to realize that the main factor fueling the opposition of mandated national service, whether militaristic or not, are the values that any given individual may hold. Most countries in the world, at their birth, adopt a set of principles as the foundation for their country. This set of principles are the fundamental elements which cause individuals to obtain value for their personal ideals, in turn, dictating the way they will operate in a society. It is correct, that a foreign national who obtains full citizenship knows what they are getting in to, sort of speak, and can't necessarily object, but when a person's citizenship is obtained through birth right, the situation is different. One can argue that if a person is mandated for national service, whether it be militaristic or not, that person has to set aside, in essence pause, their life in order to satisfy these requirements. As my opponent has expressed, there are alternatives and exceptions to these regulations in order to accommodate an individuals life goals and expectancies. Although this is correct, the alternatives can still be costly to the individuals life goals. These alternatives can be in the form of menial, non-combatant roles of civil services or serving a term of imprisonment. Obviously, this argument deals only with the factor of time and the value of it held by the individual. Other very important values are moral and religious in nature which would be addressed in the same way.

I would like to turn further focus on how conscription is relevant in this debate. Contrary to what my opponent understands, conscription does not only involve militaristic services, and it also involves alternative civil service to satisfy conscientious, partial and total objectors to military service. One does not need to look far for a definition of conscription, to understand it's meaning. Wikipedia.org defines it as the following:


source

Objection to national service, whether it be militaristic or not, is rooted in the value of the beliefs held by the individual. As history shows, in many countries, objectors to a mandated national service, whether in the civil services or military sector of the country, extend their reasons to the value of their ideals. Arguments expressed by these objectors reflect evidence that even civil services can be harmful to the individual. This makes sense. If a person is required civil service as their alternative to military service, this civil service should benefit greatly the individual, giving them sense of accomplishment, honor and nationalism. As this is revealed further in the debate, I will show how it can be almost impossible to support a system of mandated national service were every individual will no doubt obtain a sense of country, honor, accomplishment, pride, and lessons for the future, specially if this civil service is the subject of "soup kitchens" and entry level positions in "hospitals", "many areas of the community", and even "nature conservation."

But a statement can have an implication.



That is correct. In my previous post I addressed that indigenous citizens would also do National Service. I did not exclude indigenous folk, at any point, but focused on non-indigenous folk entering a country being required to do National Service. I have simply not included indigenous folk, who, by being a citizen, by default, would be required to do national service – by default. So, to appease my opponent I will restate, National Service will be a requirement from default citizens and those wanting to gain citizenship – BUT what this also means is that NON citizens will be required to fulfil some period of National Service. If one reads my post above it is clear born citizens know what is required in regard to this.



That is incorrect. What I did say was: “With regards to an individual placing
their life on hold to be able to deal with having to do military service or OTHER useful service, I am sure would be something that the country would address and possibly have the term broken into more manageable periods.” Which it is and was in some countries!

Source




I did not state it only involved military services. What I did say is that “Conscription is typically military service.” My opponent has kindly enforced this point in his external reference below:

which means it isn’t the norm.

AND I add:
Source




Once again there are alternatives. National Service does not end at Military Service. What values does one harbour when they do not want to do ANYTHING to assist their fellow citizens?

As an example, lets use Sweden:
Source - PDF




That is not entirely true. Harmful? How? If a lion eats them – yes. If they drop a soup pot on their foot – yes! Perhaps to a VERY FEW individuals though. As I have stated before, national service is beneficial to an individual AND the country. This is a proven fact.

Source


AH BUT – you may say, what about:

In some countries the Merchant Navy IS an alternative to Military service but is sometimes as highly regarded.

Values? Conscientious or total objector? There ARE alternatives. But as John Clark, above, had to do – emigrate to Canada! Like I said before, if someone doesn’t like the idea then they need to find another country to live in!

National Service is very important to a country and the many supporting roles it offers enlistees are so numerous there should be a place for any individual with any value system. I believe there would be so few individuals who would not be catered for that the numbers would be insignificant.

This brings me back to the main point – National Service – “"Full citizenship in any nation should require that a person perform military or other useful service for the state for a certain period of time."

ABSOLUTELY! Full citizenship should require anyone being a citizen or wanting citizenship should abide by the same rules and/or laws of a country. EVEN born and bred citizens have a responsibility.



I disagree with the above! As I mentioned earlier in this post, even citizens, born and bred, have an option – serve or emigrate – simple. It is important that citizens do something to serve their country.

What happens when a citizen, whether born or immigrant, goes on a state pension or disability pension as an example? Who supports them? The country!! Why then should they NOT offer up some of their time and earn that assistance? Why should they sit, having given nothing back, and let the tax payers support them. I say they also need to give something back – something they can’t really do when disabled or elderly.

I would like to address the portion my opponent has commented, stating I misinterpreted his words. It is very clear what he has stated, but he has misunderstood my summary of that statement. A conscientious objector can be someone who objects national service for one reason or another whether it is partial or total. In this case, it would be someone who would object to national service because their service schedule does not fit in with their current career and it's expectancies. I wrote that my opponent stated countries will take the "necessary actions to address" the issue whenever someone objects. In this case, the country will find a solution to fit the service into their schedule, as my opponent clearly agrees. The issue of conscription is moot now as my opponent seems to agree that conscription is not only military service, even if it is "typically", "usually", "sometimes", or "most often" only military service. This debate does touch on the subject of conscription as it is a form of national service, even if the "norm" is militaristic service.

National service includes all of the following:

1) Military troops for all areas:
- direct combat operations (navy, marines, army, national guard)
- mechanical (vehicles/hardware, weaponry)
- medical (psychological, physiological)
- electrical (networking, electronic hardware/software)
- operational (bureaucracy maintenance, nutrition, general supervision and security)

2) Specialized workers for all areas:
- mechanical (vehicles/hardware for government or construction purposes)
- medical
- electrical (electrical infrastructure)
- general infrastructure (construction, maintenance, water flow/escape systems)
- law enforcement/ security
- government operations (bureaucracy maintenance/supervision in legal and financial matters and procedures, oversight)
- nature conservation (re-forestation, enforcement of environmental laws, specialized general evaluation and procedure)
- education/training (qualified instructors)
- industrial (fuel and other crucial resources)
- nutritional (key roles to assure successful implementation of procedures)

3) Non-Specialized workers for all areas:
- nutritional (all operations in food production and distribution)
- maintenance (government and other key facilities)
- nature conservation (entry level roles of support)
- medical (entry level roles of support)
- mechanical (entry level roles of support)
- infrastructure (entry level roles of support)
- education (entry level roles of support)
- industrial (entry level roles of support)

This list does not reflect all roles available, but it highlights the most important for the maintenance of the country. When looking at what roles are available for the average citizen to turn to as an alternative for non-militaristic roles, we see that most of vital areas, one needs many years of training and then additional years for experience. Please ask your selfs the following question: Will a national service program successfully implement and acquire the financial and operational procedures necessary to sustain itself where every individual will benefit greatly?

Let us look at the war time scenario. During war time the main influx of necessary individuals will be focused on military roles of combat and non combat nature. Military roles of a special nature like electrical engineers, pilots, mechanics, doctors, nurses and even special forces all require that one receive extensive training and extensive practice in the field of study. This training time will take more than 2 years of implementation as these areas of specialization require that the individual be extremely knowledgeable. When all of these military roles are occupied, other forms of national service can be chosen. Some alternative roles available of non militaristic nature still require that an individual receive extensive training exceeding 2 years. Non essential roles of militaristic and non-militaristic nature can all be classified as entry level positions. This adds for training that will not be extensive and can be completed within 2 years or less. Entry level roles can be classified as the following: roles in food preparation and serving, non essential assisting in any specialized field, upkeep of facilities and reusable materials, "product line" manning in industries of necessary production, helping out those in necessary need with shelter and guidance, etc. Basically, one does not need extensive training to carry out the role successfully. If we look at the peace time scenario, the demand for all of these fields will be greatly reduced, but the importance of the training still exists.

Objections that arise will be for religious, moral, ethical, and personal reasons. If we take the religious sector into account, many will object to militaristic roles and will more than likely opt for a non militaristic role. If the case is that the alternate role still emphasis support for the military, the value of the individual's ideals is too great, even an indirect support role for military actions will be unacceptable to the individual. Of course they can just opt for entry level positions into any of the other fields that do not support military action directly or otherwise like a "soup kitchen", supporting the civilian sector. What if the individual objects to the role as he feels it will be a waste of his time and he will learn no valuable lesson or life skill? I ask my opponent, what other alternatives does he have? The same can be said for any other objectors who may hold values of non religious nature. This is were we can see this program being harmful to individuals. It is harmful, not because they will drop a soup pot on their foot, or be eaten by lions, but because an individual will have no choice in the matter as to were his labor will be used. Another question to consider is what will happen when all essential positions are taken, and the surplus of specialized citizens cannot be accommodated properly? What alternative should they choose?

In order to successfully maintain such a program, the issue of finance will come up. In order to train and maintain millions of citizens into any of these roles, there has to be a system implemented that will generate the necessary funds to support the program. This is not exact math but it is evident that billions and billions, if not, trillions of dollars would have to be spent on training citizens, over many years, maximum 2 for non essential roles and minimum 3 for specialized essential roles, in order to achieve any success for the future. This "fund generating" program would most likely be in the form of more taxes taken from all citizens of the country and major businesses. At this point I ask that my opponent present evidence of such a successful program, that will generate the funds necessary to train and maintain millions of citizens into specialized and non specialized roles of national service for present and future situations.

Now, though I agree with the above statement to a point, what our esteemed readers need to know is that with all people, citizens or those seeking citizenship, need to do national service. ALSO, this isn’t for the average citizen. As we have discussed, citizens born will do the usual service after school and usually before they start work. Alternately, they will complete some sort of university studies and then GAIN experience via National Service. AGAIN, a benefit to them – they do not have to find a job without experience – they will look for work WITH valuable experience. Where roles require training and experience – as I clearly stated, National Service IS beneficial for all due to the fact that 1 – They WILL get training and qualifications and; 2 – they WILL get experience and this they can carry to civilian life.

When it comes to people being older, which would be the immigrant as an example, ok let me lead the thought process here, let’s discuss the two extremes, the younger i.e. school/university leaving age, they will do the usual national service, ie. Military or other. Now what about seniors that immigrate? Well there are areas where senior citizens can be a benefit to the community like community crime prevention etc.

Source


But again, as with the lists provided in this debate, on the numerous possibilities, there is always place for someone of any age. I also doubt very much that any democratic country would force someone of, let’s say 40 – 60, to do a full year of military service but would rather place those people in some sort of community service for shorter periods of time.

Again, I need to reinforce why we are debating this topic. It isn’t about what a person will end up doing to serve the country and community via National Service, it is whether they NEED to do National Service to serve the country or community and the answer is YES.



Let’s look at it like this – there are already operational procedures in place and they are constantly being updated and refined. There is never a fixed, unchanging, operational procedure. New SOPs (Standard Operating Procedures) are being created daily. I don’t think Operational Procedures are an issue at all. Financial implications? Why are we worrying about financial implications to this?

Let me put it to you this way, finances are not a problem. Yes it costs the taxpayer money and citizens are paying more taxes because of immigrants; what we need to understand is that immigrants add around $10billion to the US economy annually and because of the immigration numbers the economy is healthier due to increased labour force. So why not let these immigrants do their part for the country with National Service.

Born and bred citizens who leave school early, or without a full education, are receiving lower wages too because of this; SO(??), AGAIN, National Service will give them an education, qualification, experience and ultimately increase their earning capability and give someone, who is productive, back to the community.

It is economically viable to have National Service. It is a benefit to the country to have National Service. Young and old CAN do some sort of National Service. Everyone can do some sort of National Service.



I disagree. Though all fields require some sort of training, a war time scenario is not valid – as we know, from past wars, all people are called to the cause in some way or other. Some will continue to do what they have been doing; no one will be put in the role of a doctor if they are not already a doctor for example. People filling important roles already have qualifications or experience unless they were busy gaining these experiences and then they may be thrown in the deep end.

In peace time, requirements for these roles are not necessarily “greatly” reduced at all – IF at all. What MAY be reduced is the concentration of people doing the same things. For example, a boiler maker may be called to help build tanks or planes as will a sheet metal worker. That does not mean boiler makers are not required after a war or that sheet metal workers are not required after a war. They will still continue doing what they were doing to earn a living.

Training is never ignored and during war or peace, training is important. Dressmakers may be called to build tanks too, but doctors won’t be used to make guns – for example. The requirement for citizens to fill positions in National Service is even more pronounced if we consider war time requirements. With that said, there will be more qualified people with required experience when the time of need approaches i.e. war time.



As you, and I, have provided a list of possible services, I believe the possibilities are so numerous that, unless an individual wants to sit doing absolutely nothing in the comforts of a shelter, or prison – military or other – the only other alternative is to emigrate.



I have addressed the financial issue earlier in my post but I will back this up with a link that can be visited. Training will always cost money and in national services these funds are budgeted for. The funds come from taxpayers and the taxpayers are supported by an increase in the labour force by immigrants to the country. Economy is also boosted by an increase in the trained labour force. I don’t believe finances are an issue. If a country wants ALL citizens to do national service then that will be budgeted for – that is logical.

Info...

I doubt there will be any sort of “cost recovery” as National Service will usually be a cost centre and not operate like profit organisations or private enterprise. Costs will be covered by taxpayers; more people in the labour force will increase the affordability of maintaining National Service(s) – which is absolutely required.

What would happen if we got rid of the Coast Guard? That’s a rhetorical question and not begging an answer from my opponent but the idea is daunting!! We need people in those areas for example.

We need national service. It is blatantly obvious.

Unfortunately for my opponent, national service as a necessity, is not blatantly obvious. Any citizen of any country is the average citizen, whether their citizenship was obtained through immigration or default. I understand that, ideally, the service would provide training for all individuals regardless of age or gender. I understand that, ideally, the service program will find ways to accommodate the schedules of all individuals and their persisting concerns and objections. I understand that, ideally, every individual who is a participant in the service will benefit greatly through the value of the lessons learned. I also understand that in a world without differing ideals and goals this would work, but unfortunately, we humans are known to oppose view points and actions taken by others specially our own governments, even if it is just an opinion and nothing else.

Contrary to my opponents objection, the roles of which people will be assigned to by mandated service is very relevant to the conclusion of the argument. The reasons why objectors arise, are due to the fact they do not agree to what it is they are assigned to do. My opponent further states that due to the numerous possibilities of roles, "there is always [a] place for someone of any age." This is impossible, as for everyone to benefit greatly, the "supply" for these positions has to outweigh the "demand" for them. Yes people will eventually find an alternative, but what is failed to be realized is that not everyone will agree to where they are placed, infringing on their right to choose, their right to free will and harming their planned life progression. For example. There are 100 positions in the country only available to educated medical personnel in demand but the country has supplied 200. The extra 100 arise from the idea that these people objected to service to any other field besides the medical field, got trained, but since the government created a surplus of skilled workers in the field, these highly skilled workers would have to result to lesser work in "soup kitchens" and "nature conservation", in essence volunteer type roles. What happens when there is also a surplus of workers, skilled or otherwise that cannot accommodate any other positions? What happens when there is no longer a necessity for mandated workers and fields whether specialized or not? This is one way a national service program is flawed, in any country, and a program such as this is impossible to sustain financially, for any country even the United States. If the ultimate solution to any issues coming from objectors is to leave the country or go to jail, this echoes of tyranny, and there are many examples of tyrannous leaders using programs of mandated "national service" in order to further their agendas. Even if they just want to sit and do nothing at all, that is their choice as a free will possessing human. This is the main value at risk.

I would like to bring the audience attention to the following. Since my opponent has referenced the United States, the beacon of "democracy" as an example, I will do the same. Although the notion of creating a successful budget to finance such a program seems logical, it may be so, but perception and fact are two different things, even perceived logic. The United States currently supports and promotes programs, whether direct or indirect, such as the Americorp, Job Corp, and Peace Corp and even the recently proposed U.S.A. Freedom Corps by the Bush administration meant to expand on previous ones. Although these programs are mainly "volunteer" work, they act as a form of mandated and persuasive national service, in essence a form of mandated "volunteerism". The proposed U.S.A. Freedom Corps required initial federal funding of over $500 million dollars and millions more to come, compounded yearly into the current national debt since 2002. That is just one program out many that allude to what a larger scale, federally mandated national service program implicates. Keep in mind one has to consider the amount of funding necessary to teach, train, feed, and pay millions of citizens over an indefinite period of time. After considering these implications, add on top the necessary funding for military operations and maintenance. As my opponent has disagreed, this is to show that the financial aspect is one of the most important elements in order to determine if any nation should require citizens to take up mandated national service for some time and if that program will actually be a success and benefit every citizen greatly and "equally" in a sense. Honestly, it is impossible for even immigrant work to help fund such a program.

To conclude this debate:

I would like to thank my worthy opponent for his arguments and the esteemed readers for considering both sides of the argument – pro and con.

I have proven, with good reason, that "Full citizenship in any nation should require that a person perform military or other useful service for the state for a certain period of time;" the logic is absolute.

I have offered good reason why it is beneficial to the country and to the individual. My worthy opponent has also echoed my reasoning and has also supplied a list of possible areas an individual can serve in.

It has been beneficial to many and, as per a list of famous people I provided; many have honed their skills whilst doing national service. It IS a benefit to the country and it increases the able labour force by offering those, who do not have the means to study or gain experience in certain fields, a way of improving themselves.

There will always be objectors; there will be objectors to anything and everything. People will object to going to the dentist BUT it is beneficial to do so. As my opponent has pointed out with the objectors:


He has agreed that there are other possible areas one can serve in. Yes, objectors will always be. There are individuals who, by nature, will object.

My honorable opponent has also used the “financial” argument. I have also proven that this cannot be an absolutely valid argument as trained individuals add to the economy and strengthen the labor force.

The question, esteemed readers, is not whether there will be objectors and financial implications but it is about whether a country should require that "Full citizenship in any nation should require that a person perform military or other useful service for the state for a certain period of time." This needs to be considered very carefully and re-read if necessary. It does not only state military but also OTHER useful service – my opponent AGREES.

The benefits financially will reveal themselves in the fact that the country will not have to support as many homeless and jobless individuals because they simply cannot find work due to lack of skills etc. They will IMPROVE the earnings of a country and strengthen the economy. Objectors? We cannot continue, in this day and age, making excuses for people. They need to stand up to the plate and do their duty to the country. When we are out the defending and serving our fellow man, they will be sitting on the sidelines pointing fingers and condemning though THEY will be the ones we will protect.

My honorable opponent agrees again with my reasoning by saying the following:


So ultimately it IS human to oppose anything that cramps our style but that is NOT a valid argument as to why we should not have National Service – either Military or Other.

My opponent has NOT reasonably proven why a country should NOT require military or Other service by an individual requiring citizenship.

I HAVE proven why a country should. The benefits are numerous!!

Contrary to what my opponenent has stated, the case for nations requiring their citizens to perform military and other useful service is not clear cut, and it is not necessary. The logistics that such a program would be successful, are very important to stablish a decision to implement and enforce such a program. My opponent has failed to present this very key piece of information, and has resulted to "it is everyone's duty for their country" as his defense. It may seem as everyone's duty to serve in such a program, but even Hitler used the same type of "national service" doctrine to further his malicious plans.

Do not be clouded by how nice such a program can be wrapped and sold to you. When citizens allow their governments to dictate where they will be "needed", is just that dictatorial. For my defense, I have tried to use logic to show that a national service program will be close to impossible to support in both peace time, and specially in times of war. I have tried to show that freedom of choice is at stake here. People need to choose what is best for them, as they see fit. If people do not want to do anything with their lives, so be it, that is their choice. Only dictators tell people what they should be doing. Our right to choose freely is very valuable, and if we give the government the power to make those decisions for us, ideals, beliefs, rights will all be lost.

It is evident throughout history that such a program is not necessary because in times of great need, people do not have to be told what to do, or how to think. When the "fellow man" is in trouble, scores of people rise up from the shadows to help these people, and they do it all under the objective of volunteering and helping because they feel it, not because it is their duty as a citizen of that country, or because their government tells them too, they feel it is the right thing to do. Was there a national service program needed for all of the people who volunteered during the relief efforts after the hurricane Katrina hit the United States? Was all of the aid mandated by governments to help the people in Indonessia after the major tsunami wave hit the coastlines? Many people, from all over the world helped in these efforts. People do not need their government to tell them when they will be needed or how, the people that matter already know.

I agree with my opponent that such a national service program may accomodate people in different areas, giving people certain options. With this in mind, one has to understand that even if this is true, not everyone will benefit because not everyone will agree as to how they will be used, even with "options" on the table. If this is the case, a national service program is harmful to the individuals of a country as they have a choice of either accepting this, if not, they can just leave the country or go to jail as my opponent has suggested. Full citizenship in any nation should not require that a person perform military or other useful service for the state for some time as it is impossible to sustain, it is harmful to an individual's rights, and it grants the government almost full control of citizens.

As of 7:31 Pacific on 10/25, the star count is 24-18 in favor of Souls.

The judge finds in favor of Shearder, and awards 5 stars.

The final score is 24-23, and the winner by A SINGLE STAR is Souls.

The judge's comments follow: