The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
3 Points

Should Women Participate in Wars

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/29/2015 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 478 times Debate No: 72540
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




I will argue why women should take no part in an armed conflict between nations while pro will argue why women should have a role in war


I accept this debate.

Armed conflict between nations: When two countries or more are in a state of war such as that with WWII
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate which I hope to be both fun and interesting

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 [1].

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?



I would like all voters to take note of my opponents comment on how Nazi Germany was actually not that bad since Hitler wanted woman to be good mothers. My entires opponents argument is all based off of his or her biased and sexist ideas.

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...

Debate Round No. 2


The point I was trying to make is that defeating a tyrant/bully by increasing the number of people participating in war through allowing women to take part, does not make it right, even if you believe your own country is somehow better. Imagine Nazi Germany trained women and let them fight alongside men, and settled for Europe having won, would you still think that women should participate in war?

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

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.


For my closing argument I'll keep it short and to the point for the voters.

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.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by JernHenrik 2 years ago
I fear that our soldiers will hesitate to shoot a woman enemy soldier.
Delaying, gets him and his female comrade, both, taken captive, alive as prisoners of war.

That night, he sits alone in his cell, listening to the joyous voices of the enemy soldiers.
They are having the time of their life: Raping, degrading and torturing his comrade in arms.
Her high pitch screams pierce the stale prison smell. He sees a couple of young recruits,
hurrying past his cell, they have a bottle of vodka with them, their faces blush with excitement,
in anticipation of the "party" that's awaits them.

They notice his disapproving stare, behind the bars of the cell door. One of them, takes the time,
to stop and gloat, mocking him: You hear those screams, American? That is sound a woman makes,
when she, for the first time, feels a real man, inside her! Now, if I was you, American, I would lay down,
and enjoy it, because by this time tomorrow, night you will be strapped down, just like her, and we are
going punish your country, by roasting your balls with electricity!!

That came as no surprise, for the US soldier, well aware, of his enemies systematic use of torture as a
weapon to break the spirit of their P.O.W.'s. Still, the confirmation of the threat, amidst his friends
screams, hits him like a bullet, he crouches down, in the back of his cell, crying.

War is already Hell. A hell, dreamed up by men. I think it is better, if we not bring women into this
madness of killing and hurting other human beings, because their king is on unfriendly terms with your king?
Posted by airmax1227 2 years ago
Vote by freedomfromoppression disqualified and removed.

(Vote for Pro. RFD: Pro provided more substantial arguments that didn't involve references to any bad examples like nazi germany.)

Futurepresident2048 and freedomfromoppression are encouraged to contact me immediately.

Posted by mostlogical 2 years ago
I urge voters to read my opponents source, and look into why women want to participate in wars
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Sashil 2 years ago
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: 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.