Should Women Participate in Wars
Debate Rounds (3)
Armed conflict between nations: When two countries or more are in a state of war such as that with WWII
Let's start with a hypothetical scenario, if an alien race decided to invade our planet, it is logical to assume this alien race is more advanced, and would have an objective morality rather than a subjective morality, in other words an advanced alien race would have a clearer idea of their purpose and not experience civil war nor crime. If women were found to have taken part in a war these aliens would think:
a) Humans are weak/desperate and therefore the war is winnable
b) Humans deserve to die.
The above is only hypothetical, and is merely to show we are heading in the wrong direction.
In European countries I understand that in WW2, women played a big role in the war effort against Nazi Germany by making bombs etc, and according to history books Hitler was perhaps the most evil man ever to be born. But does that mean women should participate in wars?
I don't believe so. Asking, or forcing women to fight or to make weapons that will kill people is plain and simply WRONG; it is like beating a bully by becoming a bigger bully, it doesn't solve anything, it just makes things worse.
We are led to believe things would have been worse if Hitler won WW2. However history is biased, the victor will always seem better. Hitler wanted women in Nazi Germany to be good mothers, and to bring up children at home while fathers work. It is possible there was a hidden agenda .
There is however no doubt that the door to feminism has been opened as a result of allowing women to participate in war and that men have become degraded and will probably continue to be.
No man should have to kill a woman. What can women gain by becoming a target?
1. This isn't the 20th century anymore, all people are now equal in race and gender. The points my opponent brought up are old ideology, however, women are very capable of performing the duties as men and as equals it is their duty as well. This kind of thinking that men are superior to woman is no longer prevalent to today's society as we are realizing we were in the wrong back then.
2. Majority of Americans agree that woman should fight in combat roles. People in both parties and all walks of life agree. Woman should serve and most importantly be able to fight for their country. If majority of Americans agree then it shows that our society has changed.
3. Hitler was sexist
Hitler wanted women to just be mothers and not participate in war cause simply he was sexist. He believed men were superior to woman in all respects and wanted woman to stay in the kitchen.
My opponents only arguments are that of sexist aliens ever coming to earth and that hitlers germany wasn't that bad...
I have not said Hitler or Nazi Germany were good, nor do I believe dictatorships are a good thing. However Nazi Germany was probably not as bad as we are led to believe, see https://www.youtube.com...
Hitler did not want women to participate in war (why I brought him into this), he wanted women to serve his country by being good mothers, and encouraged planned births - stable families, and a healthy lifestyle. These are good things regardless of whether it can increase the size and strength of a dictator's army.
You say 'times have changed' and label me a sexist simply because I oppose certain freedoms for the betterment of mankind. Your "argument" is just manipulative language.
Women participating in war has inevitably led to women voting, and the lives we live today. If people are equal now, and equal in race and gender why is it that businesses must employ a certain balance of males, females, black and white people, old and young. Suppose 80% of job applicants just happen to have black skin, that means people will be turned down for a job because of their skin colour. Do you think that is right?
I am forced to turn my attention to his source where his ideas have come from.
"There are physically fit, tough women who are suitable for combat, and weak, feeble men who are not"
This is evidence of men being degraded. There is more to being a soldier than being fit and being able to shoot people. You must be willing to sacrifice yourself for a cause, and I don't see why any women would because their goal is to be emotionally happy. If a grenade fell nearby to a woman and a man, do you think a woman would jump on it to save the man or point it out? If a female soldier was captured, would she accept torture?
"The next battles for female soldiers will be ensuring that this policy is implemented effectively, stamping out any remaining sexist attitudes, and fighting to ensure that the military addresses its outstanding sexual violence problem"
So, basically if you think women shouldn't participate in wars you are automatically sexist.
My opponents main argument today is that... It just isn't right for women to fight. She hasn't provided us with any logical, and sensible reasons why women shouldn't fight. However, I've brought before you some common sense reasons: it's equal rights, women want that right to join the army, women are just as capable, and it increases manpower. My opponent brought up that I degraded men with my source as it shows some men are too weak to fight... However, that isn't degrading as it is true, some men are just too weak to fight. Then my opponent brought up business and hiring races, for one that has nothing to do with this argument as this is about gender fighting in the military. So therefore her point on that was invalid. So for my last words, whereas my opponent failed to bring good reasons for her argument to the table, and that I provided common sense answers, and whereas her examples such as nazi germany are just horrible.
I urge a vote in affirmation.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Sashil 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments by con were more of claims that lacked logical proof than actual facts. Most of his arguments were mostly based on circular logic wherien he used his conclusion as an argument. His claims about how participation of women in wars would make us look weak and how women are incapable of fighting, weren't substantiated with enough proof. Pro did a good job in pointing out the flaws in Cons reasoning and has managed to uphold his case through his arguments about equality. So arguments to pro.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.