The Instigator
dakaltenberger
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
PureLogic
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points

Should Women Be Able to Participate in GROUND Combat Roles?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
PureLogic
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/18/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 638 times Debate No: 75490
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)

 

dakaltenberger

Con

I will be exploring the pros and cons of allowing women in to front line combat roles. As of 2013, the pentagon lifted the gender ban on ground combat roles. was this a good or bad decision. All challengers welcome! I will require evidence for your arguments and not just solely opinion based posts.

Join any time. I check my account at least once a day!
PureLogic

Pro

If a woman can pass the same fitness standards as a man, it is only common logic that they should be allowed. It is much like the "Don't ask don't tell" rule, which has been removed. Providing people for ground combat is easier when political arguments are removed, and we allow anyone who is able to fight. About 14.5 percent of the military was women in 2011. This does not mean that we should restrict women's military roles because of the small number. It simply means that an amount of women can fight, and should be allowed to do so.
Debate Round No. 1
dakaltenberger

Con

First off, I would like to give you a rude awakening. Sadly women are not trained to the same standards as men, (search it if you don't believe me) for the sole reason of that if they were, most women wouldn't even qualify for military service. Also, women are not as physically capable as men (its a scientifically proved fact in anatomy). the average healthy male have up to 43% muscle mass, where as a average female has 36%. Males have on average 20% more adrenaline receptors on their cells, and adrenaline does amazing stuff like, hmmmm, well focus, boosted blood flow, muscle reaction awareness, a whole slew of stuff. Men also use highly isolated portions of their brains to complete tasks, while females use a variety of parts. the increase of stimulus in a female due to the high usage of the brain makes them susceptible to distraction on a higher rate than men.

Now, where were we. the combat effectiveness of a team member means everything. The efficiency of which you can kill, of which you can think, of which you can have those around yours backs means the difference between life and death in a combat scenario for not only you, but those you work with. KEY POINT. Being in combat involves more than just you! now, science we have stated that women are not as physically capable as men, then why should they be allowed in combat zones when they are inhibited from doing their job to the specifications needed? let me ask you something, if I was a marine, and you were a female soldier who wants to come into my unit (we have already established that women have physical disadvantage in combat and therefore do not belong) does your self proclaimed right of combat roles supersede MY RIGHT to have the best chances of coming home and seeing my wife, my kids, maybe even my family.

This was my basic argument, an outline for what is to come in later rounds.
PureLogic

Pro

Women can exceed in different areas than men. For instance, large amounts of adrenaline can hurt good decision making processes, harming yourself and others in combat with you. You have already stated that men have more adrenaline released in combat. And women, on average, have better endurance when running or walking long distances, which can help in combat. Men and women provide different abilities to the military, so both genders are necessary for successful combat.
Debate Round No. 2
dakaltenberger

Con

Okay. To the bear person. Despite the advancements in tech, everything has not come down to push the button. Our tech can only take us so far. There is still the need for people to go in and get their hands dirty. This is what we are debating about, although I do not deny that there have been significant improvements in military tech. Still, raw strength is still a big factor in infantry combat roles.

Now, I am assuming you know the hormones estrogen and testosterone. While men have higher T levels than E levels, which prompts muscle growth and other things, women have higher E levels. We can also confirm that the skeletal structure of a woman is not a sturdy as a mans. Now, Estrogen, the hormone that the female gonads secrete, is key in reproduction. why? because it make bones more soft malleable, and causes women to menstruate (period). now when you add previous mentioned facts + weaker bones + 180lbs plus of gear + combat scenario + periods + treacherous terrain = not good.

My next point will go into a woman's hygiene, and why getting a woman the supplies she needs for basic body maintenance is more expensive and complicated for military commanders than it would be for a man.
PureLogic

Pro

It may be more common for women to have a weaker bone structure, but it is not always the case. There is a condition known as Osteopenia, which affects one-third of men over the age of 50, but can affect younger men and women, too. Women can also do bone strengthening exercises, and develop stronger bones. Heavy gear can be a problem for weaker people, but not all women are weak. There are many women wrestlers and power lifters. It all depends on how much effort and practice is put in. As for the combat scenario, which you listed as a point, this is not necessarily a problem. The combat scenario may even include more endurance or flexibility, which women excel at. Periods are not a problem for very healthy women. A physically fit woman will not get as many side effects, and it is easy to carry tampons with you, since they take up little space. Since technology is becoming much more advanced, it is easy to transport people across treacherous terrain without them walking for long. Women's' hygiene is generally more complicated, but it does not have to be. Women do not have to shave, or do many common hygiene practices. The only thing they need are tampons for periods, which are very easy to keep with you or have a supply of.
Debate Round No. 3
dakaltenberger

Con

dakaltenberger forfeited this round.
PureLogic

Pro

Con has forfeited a round, so i should be awarded the points.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by BearWithMe 2 years ago
BearWithMe
"everything has not come down to push the button. Our tech can only take us so far. There is still the need for people to go in and get their hands dirty." I think you should have put this in the comments, not the debate itself. I never said that it all comes down to pushing a button, that's quite the distortion. Tech can only take us so far? How do you know how far tech can take us? Someone could easily say very many years ago that technologies of now are preposterous and impossible because "technology can only take us so far. "

In what ways do they need to get their hands dirty that a female cannot be reasonably expected to accomplish? This is not even mentioning tanks.
Posted by BearWithMe 2 years ago
BearWithMe
The technology in warfare has made raw strength less of an importance, meaning that it's easier to meet a reasonable standard for fitness in the modern era of warfare.
Posted by dakaltenberger 2 years ago
dakaltenberger
I see. well the women who can pass MEN'S standards are rare, and they shouldn't be allowed anyways, for many reasons i will cover tomorrow. I will be on around 4 o'clock.
Posted by dakaltenberger 2 years ago
dakaltenberger
I see your comment on "This does not mean that we should restrict women's military roles because of the small number. It simply means that an amount of women can fight, and should be allowed to do so." I will have a point to counter that later... this was my basis for my argument.
Posted by dakaltenberger 2 years ago
dakaltenberger
Nothing, nothing.... just forget it. I will enjoy debating with you never the less.
Posted by PureLogic 2 years ago
PureLogic
Whose info, dakaltenberger?
Posted by dakaltenberger 2 years ago
dakaltenberger
Uuuughhhh. your info though...
Posted by dakaltenberger 2 years ago
dakaltenberger
Ok, i just realized I used up my round 1 argument for my intro...

Still gonna get trolled! :D
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by MrVan 2 years ago
MrVan
dakaltenbergerPureLogicTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I feel like Con ignored Pro's points concerning where women generally excel and could benefit forces on the ground. Con, though well mannered, showed poor conduct by not completing round four.