Debate:National Service or Conscription

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

Should National Service be reintroduced?

[]

Background and Context of Debate:

Many countries throughout Europe and the rest of the world have National Service. This is normally for 18-year-olds and lasts between 1 and 3 years. There is usually an option between the military or a from of community service. The proposition should define what age this is for, for how long, whether it is for men only or both sexes and what options would be available. This topic has been written from a UK perspective, but the arguments can easily be adapted to apply to the situation in other countries too.

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

Security and readiness: Is national conscription important as a means to protect a country?

[]

[]

Yes

National conscription in peace is necessary to be ready for war or crisis: Conscription during peacetime would mean that the country was prepared for emergencies when they happened, rather than having to prepare after the fact.[1]

[]

[]

No

There is no justification for military service as Britain is not under any threat and there is no evidence that it will be in the near future: The army is capable of carrying out its role and the training of conscripts would only divert its time from more important matters.[2]

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

Character and skills: Is national service good for the character and skill-building of citizens in a nation?

[]

[]

Yes

National service engenders valuable character traits: Young people are taught respect for authority, self-discipline, teamwork and leadership skills.[3]

National service also teaches skills which means that when people leave they will be more qualified for the job market: People could train as engineers, IT specialists, drivers, chefs etc. In the long-run this will reduce unemployment and help the economy.[4]

[]

[]

No

Forced national service will breed resentment: If young people are forced to go into the armed forces against their will, it will only foster resentment against authority and will undermine any skills they might learn.[5]

The government would be better off running training schemes: This would also teach skills but would save all the money that would go into the bureaucracy of running national service.[6]

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

Patriotism and nationhood: Does national service help build patriotism and nationhood, and is this a good thing?

[]

[]

Yes

National service helps to promote patriotism and a sense of nationhood: National pride is at an all-time low in Britain at the moment and this gives us the chance to rally around a shared cause, no matter what race or culture you come from.[7]

[]

[]

No

Patriotism should not be based on the military. This can produce extreme nationalism and xenophobia which we do not want to encourage. National Pride should be engendered in other ways.

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

Duty? Does a citizen have a duty to give back to society through national service?

[]

[]

Yes

The individual has a duty to put something back into society and national service allows this. Whether it be through protecting the country or helping with social or environmental projects, this encourages the idea of working as a community instead of merely for selfish ends.[8]

[]

[]

No

A citizen only has a duty to pay taxes and follow the rules of society: Beyond that any service to the community should be voluntary. This way people will be committed to doing a good job, which they would not be if they were working under force.[9]

[]

References:

[]

Motions:

• This house would reintroduce National Service

[]

In legislation, policy, and the real world:

[]

See also on Debatepedia:

[]

External links and resources:

• Corporation for National Service
• Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (UN)
• Council of Europe: Human Rights of Conscripts

[]

Books:

• National Service ^{Richard Danzig}
• Service without guns ^{Donald J. Eberly}