下载掌阅APP，畅读海量书库
立即打开
The first speaker of the proposition side：
As the only two people in this room who have actually gone through mandatory conscription，we are extremely proud to stand in opening government today．
The stance we’ll be taking is rather simple．We think that mandatory conscription or military conscription is a restriction and an assault on the person’s liberty and such causes individuals a multiple of harms．The policy we’ll stand by is also simple．We think that we can put up conventions similar to how we put up other conventions to ban certain things such as war crime，we’ll try these things in ICC and the like．You know we’ll have everything in terms of enforcement．But that’s not really important．Because this is actually a debate of principle．
Let me talk to you three broad areas．First，I want to talk about why war crimes and why conscription falls within the scope of war crimes．Second，I’m going to look at why countries can still cope without conscripts and do well in today’s world with multipliers and technology．The last thing I’m going to look at is the practical effects of sending out a message that needs to come into this convention．
正方指出了其要证明的argument，即强制征兵极其不道德，然后分几个分论点进行证明。
Let’s look at the first thing：the nature of war crimes．
Why we have war crimes．What we want to put out there is that the reason we think war crimes exist as rules to make humanized the process of war．It is meant to protect individuals as well as populations from great degree of harms that can be inflicted upon them，and many of these areas you know involve civilian populations into the theatre of war．We argue that how armies are constituted falls within that scope． Whenever you have mandatory conscription，what you do is you drag a large population of your civilian population into the theater of war．We argue that’s extremely unconscionable．
Why we say so．For four reasons．
第一个claim，除了对于个人的身体伤害外，还有害于公民自由运动。
We think that’s far beyond physical harm although we are happy to say physical harm is a great deal of it． There’s great harm to the person，the assault to the civil liberty movement．Because an army follows an extremely rigid process． Right？It forces people into a military environment which is an extremely tough use of hierarchical structure． A great change to the lifestyle they have on the everyday basis， right？Every day they wake up，they wake up in a military camp． Moreover，there is also the risk of war you should always remember． The risk of harm that can be inflicted upon your people． We argue that many of these individuals don’t consent to this at all． When you pull people，especially young people into extremely traumatizing areas of arena，what will happen is the result that they learn many things，they experience many things they can never change themselves．What they will learn is how to kill people，they will learn how to see people get killed． And we argue that’s unconscionable because they don’t consent to these things．
两个evidence：1．入伍改变了他们的生活方式；2．很多人到了战场，会受到巨大伤害，很多伤害甚至是不可逆的，因此需要征得他们的同意。
Moreover，we want to add to the characterization that very often these people are young，they are about 18 to 20 years old．We think that’s the point of life when you form your ideas as to what they see in terms of life．Many of them haven’t even seen anyone get killed prior to this or ever touched a gun．We think that the restriction of people’s liberty denies the actualization of the individual as a person and we think that’s very harmful． But how do we break that balance？We argue that while there may be some people that suffer，and some people don’t．Obviously，Me and Phil are not physically traumatized，we think that you cannot tell．We think that a great number ofpeople are physically， mentally and emotionally traumatized． And because of the arbitrary indiscriminate way which is lashed out and these harms are lashed out on people，we think that’s why we need to ban this，that’s why we need to mediate such an unconscionable conduct．We’ll be very happy to see one from opening．
通过对被征兵对象特点的剖析和描述，指出限制人身自由对这些年轻人的害处：妨碍了他们的自我实现——
the actualization of the individual as a person。
POI：Are these individual liberties more important than collective safety？
Wonderful！Because that’s when I’m going to move to my second point—why countries can still cope．
We want to first say that the idea of defense and self-defense is a non-sacred．Why we say that？First of all，we want to tell you is that it’s not going to be as effective as they claim．Because we want to argue that army succeeds largely on the motivation of their men．What we have when you have the restrictions of the liberties lashed，forced and oppressed upon individuals that you won’t have the level of motivation．But even if we accept some degree of rational assessment as a result，we think that’s
将征兵与bombing a city以及genocide做类比，并指出即使实现了目标，最后的结果是好的，但这件事本身仍然是错的，因为都对个人产生了伤害。
effective，we don’t think that’s justified in defending a country．We think that’s so wrong and so painful to an individual． We think that you cannot commit certain types of war crime like bombing a city in order to achieve your objective，we still call it a war crime．Sometimes you have a genocide to achieve your objective， like try to make people to do some deal with an entire population． We still call it a war crime．We think there is no difference． Even if there is some success of this policy，we still think it is an unconscious act，we’ll still call it a war crime．We think that is something we cannot tolerate．
Then we want to look at this other idea why countries can still survive．Right？
We think ultimately a volunteer force is a lot more legitimate and a lot more effective． We think now proper recruitment has been in place，in places such as US，you know a great deal of American people，men have signed up to the American guard，Army reserves．We don’t see a problem there．We think countries are able to implement those size of armies who don’t necessarily suffer from any kind of damage．But more than that we tell you since such forces as multipliers exist today within the context of war，since such as machinery，since such as Israel drones，such as tanks and other kinds of automation that reduce the needs to get such as a physical army as huge numbers in order to obtain your objective．As a result，the end part of the argument is to tell you that countries like Singapore can survive．It’s not like that we can’t．We think without conscription we allow for a great respect for individuals，life and individuals’liberty．We think that’s the more important value to defend in this debate．
The last thing we’re going to talk about is the practical effect of the message that we send out with this policy．We tell you that we send out the message that we recognize that the individual’s autonomy when it comes to war is extremely important and is something we cannot infringe on，that we cannot drag individuals indiscriminately into the theatre of war and subject them into any kind of harm．Right？We do care their consent．We tell you furthermore that what our policy does is to send the message to tell armies that they should be more professional．They should properly recruit individuals and when it comes to proper recruitment，you also change how armies treat these young men．We argue that to a large extent，conscripted armies don’t treat young men very nicely，pee on them．Ask any Singaporean sitting on that table and they will tell you that．
At the end of the day，what we want to tell you from this side of the house is that conscription is extremely unconscionable，it’s a restriction of a person’s liberty．We are very proud to propose．
The first speaker of the opposition side：
What we need the government to acknowledge in this debate is that this is a zero-sum game．It means one party has to lose something．Your individual choice to protect yourself is a choice to sacrifice the security of the nation state and the security of other members within the society．But that opening government didn’t even bother to justify circumstances when there is an urgent need for you to sacrifice yourself or even there is not a better consolidation within your state of national security and why those are not sufficient tradeoff within this debate．All of us have money． All of us have technology． All of us have multipliers we can afford to equip ourselves with．But before that，what kind of world does our opposition support？ We support military conscription in times of emergency when due process has opened up． The security of the state is a legitimate compromise in those situations you believe every person in that state has a mandate to save our nation．
反方采用“国家安全”这个论点，与正方的个人自由进行对比，指出在国家安全面前，个人有义务拯救国家，即个人的自由可以被牺牲。
Two rebuttals．Firstly，war crime．They give you two justifications．Their first justification is with regular large numbers of civilian populations into the grounds of war，and within this side，it shoots straight into the defense of individuals．These individuals who undergo intensive military camps to self-defend and attack within the military environment；and that they’re fully equipped，and that they are going to survive the war—this massive harm of war，and that we are going to build them as heroes．And we don’t see any justification why consent matters．
Second justification is that the consent of these individuals is forced without recognizing that in situations of national emergency， this sacrifice of consent is not unique to individuals to protect whether or not it is a commonality that enables the state to function in the most efficient manner．We say everyone loses some extent of basic right to the national emergencies．All of us loses the right to free movement under curfew to enable the state to protect you better．All of us loses the right to freedom of association—you cannot trade with the enemy and etc． We don’t believe consent is an exclusive justification that we have to honor for this particular group of people but not for the rest of the society when we can identify there is a huge tradeoff within the state．
反方采用类比的方式，通过与战争时期的宵禁、战争时期不能与敌国进行贸易等，指出个人的自由并不是绝对的，尤其跟国家的利益这一原则相比。
Second rebuttal，can state cope without conscription？This is the largest thing they need to prove within this debate because effectively homogenizing every single country within the group of demography．We have two responses．
Firstly，the countries that were plagued with conflict and that add a most acute amount of threat to the countries with extremely minimum economic capacity and extremely limited diplomatic ties．These individuals who are extremely important for these countries to self-sustain when the perception of security comes into play．But secondly，even if they have such things，at least there is a better consolidation of your state security．If this number of people is able to provide better security for the rest of the country，we say there is still a better trade-off that the proposition need to acknowledge．There is also a military force where you treat them especially badly．When you look at the Israel where there is little regulation，when you conscribe them into the military，you’ll still be peed，the same amount you will be peed in regular society when this state can afford to give this strike．Closing．
POI：Would you allow slavery because it’s necessary for national security？
But there is no such situation because we don’t need slaves to function．You can somehow magically materialize them then we will start considering it．
Critical to empowering the sovereign national security，it is to acknowledge we are talking about sovereign state．It means there is a physical and psychological right for the state to be free of external and internal threats and when that threat is imposed on the national state，we think no concrete tangible harm to lower the importance of security．Let’s look at what other situations we can do without consent． We do without consent when it comes to taxation for the sustainability of the state．We do without consent for education for there is a sustainability of society．When you consent，there is a clash with inalienable right that poses the threat to the state to function，and the right for state as a normal state and to protect other members of the state． Your consent is no longer a tangible justification for us to do with this harm．
与税收和教育进行类比，指出consent不用考虑，并指出征兵也是一样，都是为了国家的持续发展。
So why is security an inalienable right， Mr．Speaker？Because without this as a basic premise，no other rights can function． Without the right to security，you cannothave the right to commonly actualize your choices in any manner possible． So，here’s the utility argument．While your proposal results in insecurity，we say yes．Because securities are indeed perception game． When we analyze the international cooperation ，how we perceive each other．When we perceive your country is actively unable to conscribe，we know that you have a tangible disadvantage when it comes to diplomatic ties and militia．And you use this threat in terms of conversing with each other and political posturing that you have the inability to protect yourself．But secondly，it is also perception game internally ．Every one of us needs to feel our state is able to protect ourselves．That’s why we have policies you cannot carry fires in the private theatre，you cannot carry a weapon in your pocket，because there is tangible action which will result in paranoia and fear．Your policy is telling us we are losing a massive avenue to have a military advantage．It will cause paranoia and fear especially under acute pressure and threat．So，in this debate，when the clash is between your liberties and the inalienable right，we win．Second argument how we trivialize national standard of inhumanity，Mr．Speaker．Because the tremendous dissent of what constitute the universal value of threat．But under the rules of ICC right now，we have a lot moral legitimacy when we argue things as genocide the premise of humanity is wrong．But in all of these ideas，you firstly have a criminal intent，and secondly a massive devastation to humanity which are both absent when you talk about military conscription，even the idea of death is something that concur when it comes to wars．Now you have given them the legitimacy to take away against the trend of joining the ICC．Because they can value as the very vested，as the very liberal conception of values that lots of states do resort to military conscription are not being demonized but as the very legitimate political strategies to protect themselves，protect their society．You give them moral legitimacy to detract away by saying these are their own people．You detract themselves away from their duty，of their universal conception of value that we can all agree．Mr．Speaker，for the fourth and final time，I’ve never been prouder to propose．
将安全与正方谈到的自我实现进行比较，指出安全是自我实现的基础。并且指出，安全其实是人们的感受。当一个国家不能进行义务征兵时，在国家的外部和内部都会造成很大的伤害。
针对正方genocide的类比，指出两者的不同，即是否存在犯罪意图，以及是否对humanity造成了巨大的伤害。
此辩题是2013年中国亚洲议会制辩论赛总决赛的辩题，正方一辩主要论述了两点：①义务兵役制因为没有征求个人的同意，所以属于战争罪；②不义务征兵仍然能够解决国家安全问题。而反方一辩则主要针对正方的第一点，证明在国家安全面前，个人的意愿并不重要，甚至可以被牺牲。下面将分别就正反方一辩的论述进行分析，看看其都有哪些论点，采用了何种论据，又用何种论证方法进行证明，以及其存在的问题。
论点1： 强制征兵没有征求个人的同意，对个人造成了伤害。
论据：
a．强制征兵改变了个人的生活方式。如军营中严格的等级制度，严格的作息制度，并且要求所有人都一样；
b．时刻存在战争的威胁，学会怎样杀人，影响了这些18到20岁之间被征兵者的人生观和价值观；
c．义务征兵使个人无法实现其自我价值。
论证：
采用聚合论证法。综合上述论据，因为未征得被征兵者的同意就限制了他们的人身自由，影响了他们的人生观和价值观，对个人造成了严重的伤害。
评析：
该论点谈到了强制征兵中一个重要的特点，即没有经过个人的同意，但是并没有证明为什么同意（consent）在此背景中如此重要，所以反方指出在国家利益面前，同意并非那么重要。反方采用了类比论证法，类比战争时期的宵禁、禁止与敌国开展贸易，指出国家利益高于个人的自由。
其次，未能完善地论证为何限制人身自由会影响自我实现，因为军营中严格的作息制度及等级观念也可能对其有所帮助，如在严格的等级制度中能够让其学会服从，在组织中更好地协作等。
论点2： 义务征兵将削弱军队的防卫能力。
论据：
a．军队的防卫能力主要在于士兵的主动性；
b．当士兵的人身自由受到限制时，当士兵被强制做某事时，他们将缺乏主动性。
论证：
运用演绎论证法，因为士兵的主动性决定了其防卫能力，因为义务征兵是对其进行强制，而当其被强制时没有主动性或主动性较小，所以义务征兵将削弱军队的防卫能力。
评析：
该部分的论述比较完整，逻辑链清楚，但是反方将防卫能力弱的强制征兵与没有实施义务征兵、根本没有防卫能力进行比较，指出防卫能力弱总比没有防卫能力好。
论点3： 义务征兵与大屠杀一样，是一种战争罪。
论据：
a．轰炸城市；
b．大屠杀。
论证：
采用类比论证法，指出强制征兵与两者一样属于战争罪。
评析：
该部分在类比时，并没有指出强制征兵与轰炸城市、大屠杀之间的相同点，这是在类比时最重要的一点，而反方则尖锐地指出其不同之处，即从战争罪的构成来看，前两者都有犯罪意图，而强制征兵中国家对士兵并无犯罪意图，所以成功解构了该论证。
论点4： 不实行义务征兵，仍然能够实现国家安全。
论据：
a．可以采用志愿兵制，如美国；
b．现在的科技很发达，如无人机、坦克等很多武器，可以不用依靠大量的士兵。
论证：
运用类比和演绎论证法，因为有其他可行的非强制性方式实现国家安全，所以没有必要实行义务征兵。
评析：
该论点初看论证较为完善，但是仔细推敲则仍有不足，如没有论证目前采取强制征兵的国家是否可以像美国一样实行志愿兵制。两者有何相同或不同之处，这也正是反方反驳的切入点，即那些强制征兵的国家一般都是国内经济状况不好，外交关系有限的国家。对于这样的国家而言，让国内的人感到安全是国家的首要任务，而强制征兵，则会让国人感到始终有人在保卫着国家，从而拥有一种安全感。对于第二个论据，无人机能否用于战场一直存在争议，因此也减弱了该论点的可接受性。
Directions：Readthroughthe speechofthe secondspeaker ofthe proposition side and the speech ofthe secondspeaker ofthe opposition sidefor the above motion： Military conscription should be a war crime ，and analyze the arguments to find out how arguments are constructedwith evidence andwarrant．
The second speaker of the proposition side：
这里使用的是哪种类型的论据？论点是什么？论证方法是什么？
In a military unit，there’s a soldier called Ajar．Ajar was perhaps someone who is a little slow．It took him a very long time to wear a uniform．It took him a very long time to understand instructions．Butbecause the unit demanded that everyone be treated as a soldier，because the unitdemanded that these men notbe treated as individuals but be treated as a soldier，to be cool like a soldier， someone only valued in the army．He was called retarded all the time，an idiot．He was forced to stand in put - up positions for extended periods of time，not because he was a bad person，not because he deserves to be mocked this way，but because the army demanded of him． They trivialize war crime saying that systematic instructions of the individual and in denial of the individuality is something that is not a war crime．They trivialize war crimes when they say the state has a right to tell all the people in the country that for at least two or three years，your freedom doesn’t matter，your choices don’t matter，you must be a soldier because your country demanded that of you．We think that’wrong．We are very happy to oppose that．
Firstly，I’m going to deal with the materials about harms．Secondly，I’m going to talk about why national defense can be achieved without military conscription．Last，I’m going to talk about how dear their side makes war was．
The first thing is，look，in response to their material．Well，the army train these people，so they are no longer soldiers．This is against their initial point，that is you are forcing civilian population against their will to engage in combat．And they have to kill people not because they consent to it，just because the army trains you，and you magically and suddenly become a soldier．All that means the army has forced you into that combat but doesn’t deal with the initial denial of consent．
请问此处如何打破了反方一辩对税收和教育对人类自由限制的类比？
The next thing，as they tell us，is that look， we allow taxation，we allow education，but all these things don’t restrict a person’s individuality． The whole point of conscription service is that it breaks individual down to become part of a unit．The whole point of conscription service is that individuals don’t perceive themselves as individuals，but people who have to follow orders，those who have to sacrifice the fundamental aspect of being a human being which is to learn not to kill．And the state has to set that aside，to see not only themselves as potential murderers，but the enemy as people who deserve to be killed as well．If you have to force people into a system，you have to treat other human beings as individuals who should be shot at and murdered．We think that at the very essential these people have to agree．Conscription doesn’t stand．
Then further to them，they tell you what is going to happen is that you are going to force individuals into the violence of war，that the state has forced upon these individuals．And that’s why we deal with the very narrow conception of the opening opposition，things like emergencies．Several responses to this．First， there’s not really a definition of emergency because countries are always facing emergencies． Israel has faced emergencies of war for the past 60 years．Singapore is being in emergency any time，being potentially attacked by Malaysia or Indonesia．If they are going to say sovereignty is important，there is no way they are going to put a particular check on this debate，which means every state has their own way to define emergencies，and say，look，we think we have emergency now，every individual has to be part of war．What is going to happen is that politicians and individuals have to follow the state，and the state doesn’t necessarily serve the people at heart．For example，due to the military defense industry law，for example，or due to the
请问针对这个主张，都有哪些论据支持？采用了何种论证方式？
actualization of themselves，one goes into conflict．The Vietnam war serves no interest of the United States，but because they think it’s important to conscribe them，they send people to die．They send people out there to murder civilians and to come back home and be shouted at，and be called baby-killer．We don’t think any state has the right to treat people in this way．
Next，they tell us the effectiveness．This is important，because countries need to defend themselves．I think numbers don’t matter．Just because you train a million people，it doesn’t mean people suddenly become qualified in the modern warfare．But on the second level，they don’t respond to our effectiveness．Look，we don’t allow people to be suddenly diminished．It’s a war crime．We think war crime goes beyond physical harms．It’s the destruction of individual rights．We are very happy to say the conscription falls within this paradigm．Before that，Mile．
POI：The ability to conceive state policies is similarly removed every member of the societies at which point you draw the limit，liberties are important or unimportant？
While the state is forcing you to do something involving you having to die in a war？Forcing you to kill people，to be part of a system where you have denial of your individual self？I think the minimum thing for a state to say，“do you agree with this？Do you agree with a system to kill people？”
Let’s talk about war．And why they mean war crimes？What their policy does is they legitimize conscription for civilian populations，because any of these individuals could be soldiers．Any of these individuals are soldiers or potential soldiers．The whole point of the laws of war is to make distinctions between civilians and armies．What we think happens in conscription is that it involves the ability to make the distinction．And that makes the enemy to target at the civilians．Because they think any of these people could be conscripted or are conscripted and defend the country．And at least that worsens the war because that means there’s no real distinction between civilians and soldiers．What their policy does is to impose war on these particular individuals．Right？What we are going to say today is that if these emergencies are so sever，they，the politicians，should appeal to their people and say，“look，our nation is at stake and what are you going to do is to volunteer to defend the state．”We don’t think that’s something very difficult．We think that’s something to better armies．Because people will recognize the ways to defend nations．The second thing I’m going to talk about is that often because there is a popular concept how effective the army is going to be that limit the ability of politicians to deter war for their own interests．We think possibly Vietnam war will not occur because the politicians recognize they couldn’t do it effectively．We think that’s a good thing because it reduces the ability of politicians to wage war and bring the populations with them．I’m very proud to propose．
The second speaker of the opposition side：
The side of opposition unequivocally condemn how the Singaporean national service treat Ajar．They can’t expect the opening opposition to defend bullying and irresponsible behaviors and how we treat our soldiers，ladies and gentlemen．We won’t defend those irresponsible behaviors．The next thing I want to say they have mischaracterized how national service conscription works，ladies and gentlemen．Because under a nation state，you have a group that makes up the permanent soldiers of a country，and then you have another group that’s part of the national service of that country which makes up the reserve unit of that country，ladies and gentlemen．So when they said when you enter into the national service，it is equivalent to sending people to gas chambers，ladies and gentlemen．We disagree with that because the first response of the country is that you send your permanent soldiers first，and then the reserve soldier comes in later when necessary．So，we don’t think the kind of harm they are trying to characterize exists．But let’s look at a few things the opening government wants to talk about．They want to make it similar to war crimes but they never really prove that there is intention on the part of the government，ladies and gentlemen，to direct any imminent harms，ladies and gentlemen． We think the harm of death is a potential harm and is not imminent，ladies and gentlemen．Furthermore，there is no intention，i．e．they haven’ t met the criteria of other war crimes that is in existence at the status quo．We provide training facilities and we provide them with the ability to defend themselves．These soldier and other soldiers that are going against these people have to stay abide by the law and rules of war，ladies and gentlemen． So，we don’t think the kind of harms they are going to portray is true under their side of the house，ladies and gentlemen．
Secondly，in terms of capacity．We want to talk about Singapore，ladies and gentlemen．Because we think when you have a population deficit and when you are facing threats as they may argue from Malaysia or Indonesia because Singaporean has this paranoia toward us，because we are cooler or cuter just like Mile，ladies and gentlemen． We have to understand there is a population deficit．People are getting highly educated，and are reluctant to serve in necessary industries such as military，ladies and gentlemen，in order to protect themselves． What they argue is that you can have alternative such as missionaries，ladies and gentlemen．Kelvin has the guts to come out and say that we support the use of drones．We think drones should be a war crime，ladies and gentlemen． We think it kills people indiscriminately rather than foot soldiers on the ground．We don’t think any other country in the poorer countries or developing countries have these capacities in order to have this alternative．So that proposal imposes a double standard on developing countries and poorer countries that cannot meet this standard，ladies and gentlemen．
此处论证的论点是什么？采用了何种论证方法？
请问此处如何打破正方一辩对于战争与大屠杀的类比？
Secondly，they want to argue，you know，the state defines what emergency is． We are not going to defend the state irresponsibly declares a state emergency and put the civilian population in harms’way，ladies and gentlemen．We think in a context when there is truly an emergency，do you principally agree that you have to send your soldiers to defend your country？
Lastly，we don’t think it legitimizes violence on civilian population．Why is that so？Because as much as they want to say every citizen is now a soldier，soldiers around the world need to stay abide by the rules of war．You can only attack a soldier if that person is wearing a uniform．You cannot randomly attack a child or a woman，ladies and gentlemen．We think there are clear rules governing the war and those rules are necessary and sufficient to prevent the kinds of harms you are exposing these people during war．
I have two arguments to make．The first thing I want to say is that they weaken the legitimacy of the ICC and that will be problematic for the international community．And the last thing I want to talk about is how it cripples the morale of the military when they make this a war crime．But before that，I’ll take you Kelvin．
POI：If you recruit them as you say in national emergencies， will you be sending potential young and untrained boys to the theatre of war？
No．we don’t think so．Because under the Singaporean national service，you’ll still have to go to substantial amount of training in order to defend yourself．Israel has the similar model．They have to go to training first in order for them to defend themselves．We won’t send children，ladies and gentlemen，to the theatre of war．We will only send people that are capable and have gone through the training of war，ladies and gentlemen．
But first let’s look at how it undermines the legitimacy of the ICC，ladies and gentlemen．The trend under the status quo is that the ICC is already getting its attraction due to its success，ladies and gentlemen，by prosecuting people． It is the embodiment of universal exams，ladies and gentlemen．Conscription，on the other hand，is in the grey area．Some countries may require it in terms of emergency．Some states may not，like the United States have all the missionaries that you are talking about．What it does is that it reignites the kind of perception that poorer countries used to have towards the ICC．When it is projecting，you know when only war criminals and African are punished，whereas there have been any bleeders from developed countries such as George W．Bush and people like that being punished in the ICC．We think what it does is that it embodies the rhetoric that ICC is creating the divide between rich and poorer countries，isolating people even further from wanting to participate in the ICC，ladies and gentlemen．That is the regression that we should never ever risk because we want more participation in the ICC，trying to create international norms，and more responsible behaviors during war．
Last，we want to talk about how it cripples the military morale．It is important to understand some countries may not have enough people to defend themselves．Because the nature of the country is that people are getting highly educated，and are disincentivized to join the military．What the national service does is that the existing individual within the military knows that even when we go to war，there is a reserve unit to back us up，ladies and gentlemen，in order to create the resurgence of hope and morale in terms of fighting the war effectively．Regardless of whether the reserve army will be effective，we think the military morale is based on the idea that when I am in the theater of war，the state will do what is necessary to defend me．
Ladies and gentlemen，when the British soldiers were stuck at the shores of France，and the Nazi army were marching towards them，ladies and gentlemen，Winston Churchill ordered every citizen with a bowl to go and pick up every single army that is stuck there． If Winston Churchill didn’t do that and take away liberties from people，those soldiers will die．
丘吉尔的例子证明了什么论点？论证方法是什么？
And because of collective safety，we are supremely proud to oppose．
Your analysis： _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________