USA must abolish Selective Service and make the Draft illegal.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 1
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
No information
Pro makes a decent case against the draft, focused on the harm to boys, the harm to Vietnam, and that the lack of volunteer soldiers would be proof the country has failed so should not be able to wage war.
Con refutes that pro's points imply /should/ but not /must/, and further that a moral obligation to be rid of it would be faster attained by other means (remove the selective service, so that the draft cannot occur); this further shows the availability of an alternative option denying the /must/.
...
A few good lessons to be learned, and hopefully there will be a rematch with a better written resolution and more rounds.
no offense, but this is something that should have been talked over in a discussion, not a debate.
the way its presented looks like someone has a strong opinion, nothing more.
i challenge m.h.s to make a forum on this very debate and discuss with others.
Perhaps.
Ok.
Also, did you see my argument yet?
We could finish this debate, then you could challenge me to a topic with different parameters. Unfortunately, mods can't edit debates that are already started iirc.
Could I edit the parameters, or does one of us have to create a new debate?
I've been called the Obi Wan of this site. I mainly just advise people, and ban spam bots.
Oh and I do agree with you that the selective service amounts to slavery. I would even argue that for Stop Lose.
I would assure you that Barney knows his stuff.
You're either trolling me or you know your stuff.
Anyways, thanks for the information.
I would be willing to do the same debate with more rounds, if my opponent wishes so.
You could challenge con to another debate using the same R1, or even if you both agree to it launch the other with more rounds and delete this one (moderators would do the deleting for you should both sides consent).
Must is a good line to have inside your arguments. However, you're trying to imply a moral imperative, not something which absolutely must occur. It's good to frame resolutions for lower certainty than your arguments anyways.
Another problem of must statements, is they imply an "or else" but rarely contain them. "I must eat," is false, since I can technically starve myself and die. While one option is infinitely superior, there still is an option.
Something you may find useful:
tiny.cc/DebateArt
I didn't know that I couldn't defend my case in a single-round debate. I'll make sure to not do it again.
"Ought" is too weak of a word for the situation. I think "must" is the most appropriate word considering that the topic is about a form of slavery.
"must" is almost impossible to prove. "Ought" is the term you're looking for.
Also, debates which are single round, do not let you defend your case against even the weakest of refutations.
I meant that the government should end the draft for good.
"Make the draft illegal"
I don't think making it illegal is the word choice to go as the draft is issued by a governmental agency.