Answer the Unanswered Debate

[Wingless]

I've been making quite a home in Off-Topic recently, its rather weird D:

But I'm posting here for a proper reason:

 

Well, in school, we just finished a debate. Now I'd like to take that further and bring it you the community of Tip.It. So here's the motion:

 

This house believes that the Conservative idea of two months

National Citizen Service should become compulsory.

 

For the negatives, I put the following:

Its compulsory, so all children will have to do it which is a breach of their free will for something that is not really a legal nesseccisty.

It cuts into time they could be using to revise or socialize (socializion being important in growing up to make sure children are acclimatized to functioning in the real world as opposed to how to do forced labor).

It may expose teenagers to more danger than they would be exposed to in the first place because its complusory meaning that the violent ones'll get stuck with the good ones and of course the whole thing'll just end up like misfits.

The Tories pledged to divert £50 million of funding from community cohesion programmes to pay for pilot schemes in the first two years. About 10,000 youngsters would graduate in the first year with another 30,000 the year after.

 

 

For the positives, I put the following:

It would provide 16 year olds with certain experiences, such as helping out in the community etc.

It would give the 16 year olds something to do over the Summer Holidays. This leads to greater things such as keeping them out of trouble, and harm's way. If I may be bold enough to say, it can even lead to less crime's linked to 16 year olds due to the fact their free time would be eaten away by the service.

It is an instance of having to do a service to other people - a valuable idea for teenagers aiming for a Enforcement-styled career.

 

It ended with no direct answer, but I still feel that the negatives outweighed the positives.

So what's your opinion? Discuss :3

 

[PS: If any moderators feel that this topic should be moved, feel free to move it ^_^)

[Nero]

Plus you'd at least be semi ready to fight the Germans again if they tried any of their funny business.

 

Or the French. They always deserve a good ass kicking.

[Furah]

"Its going to mix young people from different backgrounds, different ethnicities and religions, in a way that doesnt happen right now. Its going to teach them what it means to be socially responsible by asking them to serve their communities."

 

Yeah, I can really see it end well. I honestly feel sorry for any kid who is paired with a violent or gang kid. Or a gay kid paired with someone who still follows the Law of the bible.

[Giordano]

Omg jist liek the hitlers youth!!!11!

 

So basically this is manadory, government community service. What gave the government this power? Ridicoulous.

[The Dark Lord]

The main problem is that it detracts from your liberty.

 

On the other hand, it helps prepare civilians for military service. This is an obvious benefit, but one could argue that it's also an obvious benefit for the government to be an autocracy since it gets stuff done without going through the trappings of the law and democratic process.

 

I also like Dusty's comment. You guys need to sail across the English Channel and kick some French ass every once and a while. Teach those Froggies a lesson for something they did 1000 years ago. Makes perfect sense.

[TTanT]

Here in the US, New York already has amde it required to do 30 hours of volunteer work slavery to graduate high school.

 

:thumbdown:

[tortilliachp]

Omg jist liek the hitlers youth!!!11!

 

So basically this is manadory, government community service. What gave the government this power? Ridicoulous.

 

i think you'd be amazed to hear that the vast majority of countries in Europe have mandatory military conscription and service in place. These are matters of national security. just like Guantanamo, Arizonian immigration law and the like government limits liberty for the increased security of all its populous.

 

 

we have mandatory military duty here in Norway, but you could claim pacifism or religious reason not to go to the army. then you get civil duty, much like this British system sounds like to me.

 

two months is NOTHING. we have a year, Finland apparently has two (?) years of mandatory military service for guys. it would get people away from their mothers, to meet the real world, and learn about the obligations of adult living.

 

 

all the negative arguments proposed in the original thread simply amount to " I don't want to do this" The positive arguments are also weak and introvert in being only about the role of teens and the effect on them, not focusing on society as a whole:

 

For the negatives, I put the following:

Its compulsory, so all children will have to do it which is a breach of their free will for something that is not really a legal nesseccisty. Who would volunteer? Mandatory service means everyone is left equal opportunity, in terms of education, experience be the results positive or negative

It cuts into time they could be using to revise or socialize (socializion being important in growing up to make sure children are acclimatized to functioning in the real world as opposed to how to do forced labor). How many of your friends revise all summer? You socialize with all your peers during the two months, the socialization is just in a different format than you are used to.

It may expose teenagers to more danger than they would be exposed to in the first place because its complusory meaning that the violent ones'll get stuck with the good ones and of course the whole thing'll just end up like misfits. Authority in a military program, with a clear system of punishment ensures less violence, and less danger to teens among teens who are involved here. that's what all our national statistics show, and external reports on our system, as a part of NATO

The Tories pledged to divert £50 million of funding from community cohesion programmes to pay for pilot schemes in the first two years. About 10,000 youngsters would graduate in the first year with another 30,000 the year after. This is the only real negative. the question is how much community cohesion you would get by having everyone, high class, working class, middle class learning about the situation of others by interacting with them. My guess is a higher degree of cohesion than the money spent otherwise. that's what my experience with those involved with national service, and compulsory military duty here has shown me at least

The main argument against the system should be expense. that is the main argument against national service here and everywhere: it just costs a lot more than the contribution back to society: you have to feed, house and administer an awful lot of people for a pretty long time every year.

 

 

For the positives, I put the following:

It would provide 16 year olds with certain experiences, such as helping out in the community etc. It would force youth to take responsibility for their own lives and actions for two months (read: actually acting like adults for a bit). This leads to greater appreciation of parents here in Norway at least

It would give the 16 year olds something to do over the Summer Holidays. This leads to greater things such as keeping them out of trouble, and harm's way. If I may be bold enough to say, it can even lead to less crime's linked to 16 year olds due to the fact their free time would be eaten away by the service. In a weak economy, this is an easy way of getting (potentially) cheap labor, and a better work ethic / reality confrontation with what one has to supply society for getting benefits as an adult.

It is an instance of having to do a service to other people - a valuable idea for teenagers aiming for a Enforcement-styled career.any career where you work with people at all. This argument, as presented, seems to marginalize the positive benefits of the system, by use of emotive argumentation

It would give teens a great opportunity to meet peers from around the country, and make new, lasting friendships across their natural socialization routines.

It would give greater integration, and nationalism towards their country

It would integrate those working and studying at all levels and in all areas of education together.

If placed in summer, no educational loss is given, unlike all similar European systems, leading to no change in competitiveness within the European integrated economy

National security is increased, national cohesion is increased, otherwise unproductive summers of teens are utilized.

 

Really, it boils down to cost/benefit. That's the only discussion in my country at least. As teens, we give very little to society, but get a LOT. you may want your summer holiday, i would too, but that's basically your whole argument.

[meb]

Omg jist liek the hitlers youth!!!11!

 

So basically this is manadory, government community service. What gave the government this power? Ridicoulous.

Military service used to be mandatory in a lot of countries. Community service was given as an alternative for those who didn't want to join the army because of ethical reasons.

[Giordano]

Do you guys think I'm stupid? Or misunderstood my point? I know governments across the world issue military or community service. But I'm asking the question what gives the government this stupid power? A minority of old generals? God? A piece of paper? Its ridicolus how much power governments have. That's all I'm saying.

[Saru Inc]

Omg jist liek the hitlers youth!!!11!

 

So basically this is manadory, government community service. What gave the government this power? Ridicoulous.

Military service used to be mandatory in a lot of countries. Community service was given as an alternative for those who didn't want to join the army because of ethical reasons.

 

That doesn't really mean anything...

 

Ofc this shouldn't happen, the gov't simply doesn't, shouldn't, and won't have this power.

[Wingless]

I think everyone has misunderstood this.

National Citizen Service is a non-military service in which Teens are sent to camp - like a summer vacation thing. Then, on the return, they help the communities they live in.

[Saru Inc]

I understood it perfectly. There's not much to explain, we don't agree with it at all.

[Wingless]

We don't agree with it at all.

 

And that's what I wanted ;3

I wanted to start another debate here aswell as at school to see the different levels of answers.

 

And I wasn't aiming it to you, I was aiming it to tortillachip and mEb to be precise.

[Saru Inc]

Ahhhh ok I gotcha. I mean the main reason I'm against it, is it takes away the spirit of community service in my opinion.

[Nero]

Ahhhh ok I gotcha. I mean the main reason I'm against it, is it takes away the spirit of community service in my opinion.

Only hippies actually do volunteer service voluntarily anyways.

[Giordano]

Ahhhh ok I gotcha. I mean the main reason I'm against it, is it takes away the spirit of community service in my opinion.

And it takes away work. A while back I received 55 hours of community service by a court. It was that or $386 fine. After doing the math, if I worked that much under Californian min. Wage, II would get $450. Why would I work more than I need to? In the case related to the OP, why would I work for nothing?

[tortilliachp]

I think everyone has misunderstood this.

National Citizen Service is a non-military service in which Teens are sent to camp - like a summer vacation thing. Then, on the return, they help the communities they live in.

 

i.e. the civil duty i cited, and built my arguments from in my post. I don't think we misunderstood, i think you misread. you need the same kind of organization (militarily, punitatively etc.) with civil service to control so many teens and get them to do what they're supposed to. Integration is a part of establishing nationalism, and national security, be it by military or other means.

 

Nick, in relation to OP: for your country. as a good Samaritan, for national security, because you're not exploitatively egocentric. in two words: patriotism, nationalism.

 

 

community service: if the community doesn't volunteer enough, you have to pay for it (which is expensive) or requisition the service from your citizens (which is cheap). we happen to be in an economically poor situation, so more governments need to utilize our "free time". think back two centuries ago: people didn't have free time. Free time is a luxury.

 

I think a lot of people around the world have become greedy out of all reasonable proportions: us teens epitomize that sentiment.

[Giordano]

 

 

Nick, in relation to OP: for your country. as a good Samaritan, for national security, because you're not exploitatively egocentric. in two words: patriotism, nationalism.

 

 

community service: if the community doesn't volunteer enough, you have to pay for it (which is expensive) or requisition the service from your citizens (which is cheap). we happen to be in an economically poor situation, so more governments need to utilize our "free time". think back two centuries ago: people didn't have free time. Free time is a luxury.

 

I think a lot of people around the world have become greedy out of all reasonable proportions: us teens epitomize that sentiment.

No, its not for my country, it was for the Dean of the school who wanted to get me more punished because he got pissed of at my "wit".

 

Free time is a luxury, but then why the hell do we want to give that up and return to the times of old? Because Obama wants to protect against Al-Quida? How 'bout the god damn gangsters walking around here? Give me a gun and I could protect my country better than enlisting in the armed forces.