Spend as much time researching what the other side is likely to say as you do researching what you want to say. Ideally you want them to mention an obscure, but, in their opinion, argument winning point, but because you've researched it you can say 'ahh, but that was written by a nazi, who was drunk at the time' - or whatever. It puts them on the defensive on their own points. My favourite in debates has to be when they selectively quote something, for example 'I would certainly agree all dogs should be shot', but because you've found the quote already you can continue reading on 'I would certainly agree all dogs should be shot, if I was a complete nutter - of course they shouldn't be' and they end up looking very red faced.
Try not to use straw man arguments and make a point on pointing out how many of theirs are.
For this particular debate I'd be looking at:
What countries do and don't have it - how people in those countries feel about that.
What people would otherwise do during that year - what affect not doing that would have on society/them
You're going to be looking over these points on three basis:
1. benefit/loss to personal well being
2. benefit/loss to the economy
3. benefit/loss to society's well being (including crime/artistic endeavours)
Why does service work in countries where it works well? Why does it not work in other countries. What countries have, in the last 50 years tried to introduce conscription (if any) and what's happened because of it.
Are there any procedural problems with it? How much would it cost to administer? What do you call the end of school - would people who are needing to repeat a year have to do that final year after their year of service? etc etc
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
.