The Instigator
tmar19652
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
Rayze
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

If the united states reinstated the draft, both men and women should be forced to serve.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
tmar19652
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/27/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,085 times Debate No: 28669
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (4)

 

tmar19652

Pro

I feel that both men and women should be eligible to be drafted and have to register with the sss(as opposed to men only). First round is for acceptance only.
Rayze

Con

Even though I believe that women should have equal pay as men, have a chance at running a nation, and have the unalienable to right to vote and choose what they will with their bodies.

I am against women being drafted into front line positions.
Debate Round No. 1
tmar19652

Pro

The femenist movement has argued for suffrage, equal pay, and a general equal footing with men. But in a time of war, how can they request this indiscriminate equality if they will not go to war amongst the men who are conscripted. Femenists cannot argue for equality if females are not willing to die on the front lines along-side the men. If only men could be conscripted, that would not be equality, it would be a "have your cake and eat it too" situation for women.

Also women have the same duty as any man to defend their country. They cannot argue that they are second class citizens in an age of equality and equal pay, therefore they should have to register with the sss.

Pre-emptive rebuttals

There would have to be exemptions for pregnant women (maybe like deferrment until the child is one year old) just like there are exemptions for students. The ability of women to bear children is not an excuse to Dodge the draft.

Second, women may be physically weaker per standard deviation, but this would not bar the strongest women from serving in combat, nor the weaker women from serving in support roles. This could free up men for combat roles in the military.

Third, female soldiers may be susceptible to rape as a weapon of torture. But men are subject to equally horrific acts such as sodomy, burning alive or dragging as experienced in Mogadishu. So the threat of rape by the enemy should not keep women out of the draft.
Rayze

Con

I don't know why pro has ripped his own case with pre-emptive rebuttals about pregnancy, physique, and rape, but it does connote his limitations on the issue to the standard arguments.

Rebuttal;
1. Don't underestimate the Home-front!
My opponent does not realize that women contribute heavily in times of war in the Home-front. The argument "Feminists cannot argue for equality if females are not willing to die on the front lines along-side the men. If only men could be conscripted, that would not be equality, it would be a "have your cake and eat it too" situation for women." is nothing more than a straw man accusation. Now let me explain why. Women worked in the factories manufacturing rifles, tanks, airplanes, bombs, explosives, and other supplies while the men fought. While it is true that men risked their lives fighting, but women also risked their lives manufacturing explosive ordinance as one mistake would set back manufacturing for days or weeks and cost the lives of the women.

2. What about the children.
My opponent tries to alleviate this issue with temporary exemptions for pregnant women, but my opponent does not take into account the possibility of both parents serving in the armed forces. If both parents are drafted simultaneously where do their kids go? My opponent may counter this contention with other relatives, but it should be noted that the other relatives may be drafted as well. Plus their may also be estrangement issues between grandparents and the parents. So then what?

Thus drafting women is irrational since they already contribute heavily to the war front, and due to the issue of at least one legal guardian raising their kids.
Debate Round No. 2
tmar19652

Pro


Thank you to con, but I have to tear through your argument now.


1) Don't underestimate the Home-front!



  • Doesn’t it seem sexist to assume that only women can take care of the home front. If women could be drafted, a substantial amount of men would not be drafted, and they could help take care of the so-called “home front”.


2) “Women worked in the factories manufacturing rifles, tanks, airplanes, bombs, explosives, and other supplies while the men fought



  • This is true, but personally, I would rather work in a bomb factory where I control my own fate. Rather than go storm the beach at Normandy, facing land mines, barbed wire, artillery, machine guns, the Luftwaffe, shrapnel, emotional trauma, tanks, rockets and drowning. Substantially more men died in combat than women in bomb factories did.


3) What about the children.



  • If the government offers exemptions for being a “conscientious objector”, they would have to make exemptions that if one parent was drafted, the other could not be drafted.


4) Thus drafting women is irrational since they already contribute heavily to the war front



  • Women contribute heavily to the war effort, but how is it fair that only men can be forced against their will to stand downrange of a bullet. I don’t feel like women should be able to stay home in a time of war to advance their careers, and avoid the horrors of war, while 18 year-old boys are dragged away from home with the very real possibility they may not return.


I will finish by saying, that in a time where the country is desperate and a draft is needed, traditional gender roles need to be abandoned for the sake of defending the country. Any woman experiences the same benefits that America has to offer to men, and therefore they have the same duty to defend the United States as any man. So drafting women is rational because they can contribute to the war effort alongside the men, such as they do in Israel (A country that faces extermination at the hands of its neighbors on a regular basis). There is no reason women should not be drafted, and there is no reason that strong women cannot go into combat.


Rayze

Con

Counter-Rebuttals

1. My opponent seems to be drawing the wrong impressions of women contributing to the war by stating, "Doesn't it seem sexist to assume that only women can take care of the home front. If women could be drafted, a substantial amount of men would not be drafted, and they could help take care of the so-called "home front"." I have not explicitly stated that only women can contribute in the home front when in reality children, women, and men ineligible for the armed forces served the nation. Ineligible men bought bonds that provided the funds the government needed to finance manufacturing, and children gathered scrap metal that would later be converted to ammunition.

2. My opponent states, "This is true, but personally, I would rather work in a bomb factory where I control my own fate. Rather than go storm the beach at Normandy, facing land mines, barbed wire, artillery, machine guns, the Luftwaffe, shrapnel, emotional trauma, tanks, rockets and drowning. Substantially more men died in combat than women in bomb factories did." as a rebuttal to women contributing to the war, but his rebuttal is a straw man argument. It is expected that more men died in combat than women in explosive ordinance factories. It is also noted that the Luftwaffe in 1944 was only a shadow of what it used to be after being decimated by allied bombers on the ground and by fighters escorting the bombers. My opponent also does not realize that the emotional trauma is not limited to combatants. Children whose parents were sent to war are often devastated, and fearful that the other parent may leave for combat as well. In addition my opponent claims to want to control his fate, something that is impossible to do. This is impossible because there will always be external factors such as other people (managers, co-workers), equipment (faulty or other), and other factors.

3. "If the government offers exemptions for being a "conscientious objector", they would have to make exemptions that if one parent was drafted, the other could not be drafted."

However considering how the US is plagued with single parenthood issues, it is unlikely that US will provide exemptions because of the risk of the other non-custodial parent might claim to be a conscientious objector leading to the custodial parent being drafted.

4. "Women contribute heavily to the war effort, but how is it fair that only men can be forced against their will to stand downrange of a bullet. I don"t feel like women should be able to stay home in a time of war to advance their careers, and avoid the horrors of war, while 18 year-old boys are dragged away from home with the very real possibility they may not return."
Now this is another straw man argument. My opponent simply says that it is not fair that men be drafted while women aren't drafted. I could simply state that the draft implements poetic justice on men for putting down women right's until the early 20th century in the US. Now before you (the voters) think that this counter rebuttal is a straw man argument, think about it. Men were granted suffrage while women were expected to what the men said. Women were expected to be submissive, and stay at home. Women weren't allowed to keep property prior to the 19th century while men could. Women could also be sent to a debtor's prison for the husband's debt in the 16th-17th century. The draft only affects men and does not affect women. Men saw war for its entirety, women supplied the helmets, tanks, plane, guns, and armor. Men fought in the field, Women from the factory. Fairness is impossible to achieve when the draft delivers poetic justice for women rights.

5. "Any woman experiences the same benefits that America has to offer to men, and therefore they have the same duty to defend the United States as any man"
Duty to defend the United States: The obligation to protect American interests or the US itself via combat, politically, or economically.
Women already do their duty to defend the US economically, which would refute Pro's accusation that women don't do their duty to defend the US.

Thus I urge a con vote

http://www.skiff.tcu.edu...
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by rclouse3 4 years ago
rclouse3
I have seen that A few say that women are physically or mentally set-up for combat. Against that I say the name of Roza Shanina, a soviet sniper during WW2 with 54 confirmed kills (including 12 enemy snipers in one battle).
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Also Lyudmila Pavlichenko, a WW2 sniper credited with 309 kills, including a total of 36 enemy snipers. More that 3 times the record of Carlos Hathcock , More than the 255 record of Chris Kyle, the US military top sniper ever.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
As for Female Pilots, during WW2 the Soviets had three combat regiments for women. These regiments flew a combined total of more than 30,000 combat sorties, produced at least thirty Heroes of the Soviet Union, and included at least two fighter aces.
Actually all combat pilots should be female. Just because of the advantages they have because of the way the Female is set-up. Woman on the average can withstand up to 30% more g-forces than men, have much better day and night vision and a much higher pain tolerance as well.
Women have been in combat roles for more than 4,000 years, and with with weapons getting smaller and lighter, or Mech, or pilot, they are more deadly now than when they used swords and shields!
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
1) CON: "However considering how the US is plagued with single parenthood issues, it is unlikely that US will provide exemptions because of the risk of the other non-custodial parent might claim to be a conscientious objector leading to the custodial parent being drafted." This is a conundrum, no doubt, but I don't see how this should be a limiting factor. If it was, then the number of single parents would skyrocket during a draft.

2) I don't buy CON's poetic justice argument at all. If women get drafted, they will get recognition for it. Such recognition goes a long way in the work force, as it implies that she's "been there, done that" too.

3) CON's arguments about other forms of trauma are in my mind totally trumped by the trauma of front-line combat.

CON had some valid rebuttals, but PRO addressed them in round #3. CON's uncontested round #3 assertions were IMHO weak.

All in all, a nice, well mannered, informal debate. Recommend you guys both use a spell checker - it's not a big issue, but it just takes one or two mistakes for a reader to notice.
Posted by tmar19652 4 years ago
tmar19652
This could have been a 5 round debate. Even 6 if that became available.
Posted by DoctorDeku 4 years ago
DoctorDeku
I wish this debate had gotten a lot deeper than it did. The issue of equality among men and women is one I feel strongly about and I would have loved to have read about men's rights or have seen some deeper analysis of the feminism argument from Pro.

tmar19652, look into the Men's Rights movement. It has a lot to say about how feminism has undermined gender equality by unfairly skewing gender roles so that women have special rights without much accountability. Things like this are a perfect example, but automatic female custody, fathers' right to children, abortion and the destructive effects of feminism are also among the issues discussed.

Rayze, if you'd like to have this debate again, I'd love to debate you on it.
Posted by Rayze 4 years ago
Rayze
Same here tmar19652. May the better debater win
Posted by tmar19652 4 years ago
tmar19652
I had fun with this debate Rayze, whether or not i agree with you.
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
cool deal. Let's see where this goes...
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
tmar19652RayzeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments had merit; Con's did not. Rebuttals were not actual rebuttals of the merit, but rather attempts to wave away the obvious differences. As the Doctor said, I would have like it if this debate had gone deeper. Not giving Con the point for his one, unreliable source that didn't reference anything in the debate and was, itself, kind of useless. S&G and Conduct seemed the same.
Vote Placed by TheElderScroll 4 years ago
TheElderScroll
tmar19652RayzeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Although Pro attempts to show that ?Feminists cannot argue for equality if females are not willing to die on the front lines along-side the men,? I am under the impression that the question about whether females should be forced to serve would have noting to do with equality. Moreover, Pro unintentionally conveys a message that females are deliberately attempting to avoid their duties in purpose of advancing their careers during the war time. (I don?t feel like women should be ale to stay home in a time of war to advance their careers, and avoid the horrors of war). On the other hand, Con convincingly shows that women in fact have made substantial contributions to the country (Home-front). Besides, practical concerns such as ?What about the children? argument should also be taken into consideration when arguing if women should be forced to serve. Pro?s rebuttals are not persuasive. Overall, a nice debate. My vote goes to Con for presenting more convincing arguments.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
tmar19652RayzeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: see comment
Vote Placed by DoctorDeku 4 years ago
DoctorDeku
tmar19652RayzeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments go to Pro for the equal rights argument; I buy the claim that with women's suffrage comes the responsibility to hold the same duties as men. Con never covers this until the last round at which point it's a new argument. I also give Pro conduct for Con's strawman accusations; his refutations were perfectly legitimate.