Verified answer

If you can get the opposition to agree with your definition of certain words or phrases, you've won before you start.

I think the key is to work the "fairness" angle. Ask the class if they agree that the wars are disproportionately fought by the poor and underprivileged, and they will whole-heartedly agree with you.

So.... you just won your first battle. Insist that the draft should be reinstated, and that everyone should be held to the same rules as everyone else. No special treatment or deferments for the sons of Senators. Everyone is chosen by completely blind methods.

This could lead to fewer votes for war!

To continue, you could argue that too many youth are completely aimless, and they will simply drift into a life of crime, or just end up being a perpetual parasite on society, barely able to keep a job at Kinkos.

Did you know that 75% of black males do not graduate from High School in Baltimore? (see the movie, "The Boys of Baraka") This would be a great launching pad to make the case that nothing will motivate these young men to do anything with their lives; their best chance is military service.

Another argument is that military service creates a type of comraderie that our egotistical, greedy, selfish society is sorely in need of. Soldiers share the same hardships and deprivations, and later in life, they will work harder to reduce social injustice because they've lived it.

Bring up the fact that Israel has compulsory military service, and their population actually welcomes it. They want to contribute to their own security. They don't want to feel impotent and helpless.

You could also argue that the war on terrorism may, at any time, require a major surge in offensive strikes against the enemy, and we must have enough troops to meet the challenge. As the Tom Cruise character in "Lions For Lambs" said, the war on terror is the defining question of our generation: "Do you want to win the war on terror?" If you can get the class to agree with that, you've scored a major point. It can be decisively argued that the war on terror may require more troops so that our soldiers are not unfairly forced to have multiple tours of duty. Bring up the question of fairness again.

The crux of the issue is making them agree that we will not have sufficient forces without a draft. Just find some statistics about low re-enlistment rates.

Don't worry. You're in a much better position than you think!

Use the Socratic Method.

The other person is probably thinking "military draft."

You volunteer to open the debate. The teacher will probably open the debate with a question like "Should we bring back the draft?" If he does not say MILITARY DRAFT, you got it made as the definition of DRAFT is not determined and you can define the term.

You start by defining the term "draft" as a "universal draft" for "public service." Now you are not talking about just a military draft, you are taking about mandatory public service for everyone, no exceptions.

You move on and say those who are inclined to serve in the military may do so but if someone does not wish to do so, they can serve as a forest service firefighter, an aide or orderly in a veteran's hospital, as an assistant to the police or some other worthwhile public service.

Your opponent will have all the arguments laid out for a debate against a military draft and you totally did an end run around them. You will have brought up points they had not even considered and they will flounder as they try to quickly come up with reasons why universal public service is a bad idea. Who can fault helping to take care of wounded veterans at the VA hospital?

But if the teacher does read the debate question and specifically says MILITARY DRAFT, you are hosed.

I'm 100% against reinstating the draft because it is a very stupid idea, with serious repercussions.

Anyways, you could reinstate the draft by pushing the ideology of the War on Terrorism. Stress that terrorists are in the U.S. as sleeper cells and most likely sneaking into the U.S. to wreak havor, then propose a draft be made to draw up a large enough army to defend the homeland. Instead of drafting for the army, draft for the national guard. Covertly creating martial law. Citizens would most likely accept this, since it isn't a death sentence. After a year or so, then start rotating the national guard draftees to fight the Iraq war or the War on Terrorism overseas.

I'm actually kind of surprised they didn't do this a couple years ago. Since support is super low now, it might not even be possible.

Hey buddy; did ya take a history lesson?

"Oh ya!" she said sarcastically

Please reinstate the draft and pull millions of people from their homes (against their will) to fight for causes (not neccesarily their own) for ZERO appreciation (until they hit about 70 yrs old & its REMEMBERANCE DAY!!!

People like to choose their own way in life, no one should be forced to fight and leave their families fending for themselves.

Good luck with that ........

Well, you're in trouble because no one believes we should reinstate the draft. I think you should take the Stephen Colbert approach with that one.

at least you have something, you need to try to find more and if you cant, think up stuff during the debate. one time my friend had absolutely nothing he went up and won the debate it was pretty cool, so maybe you just have to wing it. good luck.

Sorry but your going this lose this one and most likely look like an idiot.

no youre fine.