The Instigator
laleona89
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
Gileandos
Con (against)
Winning
35 Points

Should Women be allowed to serve in combat roles in the Armed Forces?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/26/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 6,697 times Debate No: 17662
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (31)
Votes (8)

 

laleona89

Pro

Who ever accepts this challenge please be sure you can finish the debate and won't forfeit please!!
We will discuss the pro's and con's of women serving in combat roles in the military forces. I agree that they should be able to serve on combat roles. This round is just accepting that challenge and I will start with the argument next round.
Thanks MJ :D
Gileandos

Con

I look forward to my opponents arguments.
I must state my opponent is up for an extreme challenge as both pro and instigator.
Debate Round No. 1
laleona89

Pro

Arguments:

1) In modern high technology battlefield, decision making skills and technical expertise are more valuable than brute strength in which women may demonstrate higher affinity for details and organization thinking demanded in what I just mentioned.
2) Many women are more physically capable of meeting performance targets than many men in combat roles. Some studies have shown that women can perform as well, if not better than men. Army researches came up with a study that proves that a women with the correct training can be as tough as a man.
3)Women have more stamina and higher pain threshold.

This are my arguments to start with thanks.
Gileandos

Con

I again thank my opponent for this debate. I am certain it will be enjoyable.

1) The Rape factor [1]

a. The enemy soldiers will rape captured women to get key information and pure “entertainment”. Other countries we would go to war with do not have our POW rules and regulations.

b. We are not allowed to train “capture scenarios” that involve teaching a woman to handle rape. They also do not bar “all means” torture for information. [source 1]

c. We are unable to train how to handle female capture scenarios - pregnancy from rape, child bearing, and capture born children being threatened under long-term imprisonment scenarios.

d. Under such stresses it would be a normal expectation for a women to give up intelligence or really anything to protect her body and even a child. It would be a very rare and cold woman that would “eat” her own child to spite the enemy.


2) The command factor and unit cohesion[2][3][5]

a. Men are far less inclined to respect or listen to women in the field.

b. There have been only a few exceptions. Religious reasons would be one.

c. It is a concept verified by any man. I would not follow a woman to the same degree. The hurdles for a normal man to overcome when earning other men’s respect is exacerbated with a woman in a command role.

d. Combat romance will negatively affect combat divisions. Men will begin posturing and dividing over the affections of a woman rather than becoming more cohesive.

e. Pregnancies have forced ships like the USS Dwight Eisenhower to return to port due to 15 pregnancies. This adds an element to command during wars beyond comprehensible. This single event earned the Eisenhower the nickname “the love boat”.

3) The bar will be lowered for women to be allowed into the combat positions [3][4]

a. Hultgreen’s case is a prime example ---She failed then eventually passed to become the first combat aviator. She clearly did not know how to fly the plane and crashed on approach the the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln. The government tried to cover up the fact to save face with the “women’s” movement. It was clearly cited that she was not familiar enough with the aircraft training.

b. Political pressure caused her death. The Navy attempted a cover up to protect the political parties involved in the pressure to pass her early.[ibid]

c. All militaries lower the bar for women. Israel is here cited that weight capacities are limited for women due to physical constraints.

4) Men’s clear physical superiority [2][3]

a. Men under any basic condition will perform at a superior physical rate.
b. Women have a physical attributes including but not limited to, limited lb capacity (due to stress fracturing) and menstrual cycle that would be problematic for long term field situations, survival situations or patrol situations in jungles
c. Even Israel who have worked to include females in ever increasing roles have scaled back female combat roles. The stress fracturing is now affirmed tested scientific fact. Women cannot physically handle as much weight as men are designed to do.

To quote Maj. Gen Ron Tal:

“It turns out that the amount of stress fractures suffered by soldiers is dozens of percentage points higher among women than among men. As a result, the female soldiers are not required to carry as much weight.”

And also his conclusions

“I think that women’s service in combat roles in the IDF should not be widened,” he said. “I cannot even imagine a female soldier serving inside a tank or in elite infantry units, mostly because of operational considerations. The army must not allow this thing to interfere with its operational ability.”

Laws that mandate the inclusion of women in combat units “place the military in a nearly impossible situation,” he said. “Expanding female service will be a grave mistake that will damage the prowess of the army. Women’s service in roles that are not suited to them might harm state security,” he warned.

d) Ron-Tal is important as he has been the leading General initiating female integration into combat roles.

e) From the report of the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces dated November 15, 1992

“The average female Army recruit is 4.8 inches shorter, 31.7 pounds lighter, has 37.4 fewer pounds of muscle, and 5.7 more pounds of fat than the average male recruit. She has only 55 percent of the upper-body strength and 72 percent of the lower-body strength.”

5) Enemies emboldened

a. Even if by some miracle you managed to overcome the above issues.

b. You would have to train the enemy’s populations to be concerned a bunch of women are coming after them.
c. Many foreign cultures have little respect for a woman as an opponent and as a result will be far more aggressive against the United States and causing more death and harm of our soldiers.

We see that my opponent must overcome these major contentions above.

She must show that:

- a high percentage of women would indeed perform well under rape and POW child bearing torture scenarios, when we cannot even train for it

- Unit cohesion would not be adversely affected. (Realize even a small percentage of poor unit cohesion could be the difference between loss and victory)

- Commanders would not be affected negatively

- Training for our military would not suffer

- The average woman could handle the peak performance as the average man can despite scientific certitude to the contrary

- That the enemy would not be more aggressive toward a feminized army

[1] http://www.loc.gov...

[2] From the report of the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces dated November 15, 1992

[3] http://www.israelnationalnews.com...

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[5] http://www.msnbc.msn.com...
Debate Round No. 2
laleona89

Pro

For your first argument of rape I will be skipping it for last.

When it comes to men not respecting women I think women are completely able of gaining their respect and honestly I think most women will stand up for themselves when not respected and will not tolerate the disrespect. I think they would fight back and will be stubborn as hell until respected. Women know that men don't always respect them and they wouldn't think about entering the army if they couldn't handle it. I think that women are totally capable of overcoming the hurdles of gaining a man's respect. Also if the Commander or someone on a higher level notices that this woman in particular is going to be a problem then tell her and if you have to take her off the role do it; not all react the same to disrespect. When it comes to Combat Romance I think that men and women should only meet when it comes strictly to business. Romances or relationships develop when the two interact with each other outside of work; the same comes to pregnancies if they don't interact outside of work they will not have sex and they should make a pregnancy test a week or a few days before the boats leave and maybe have them on the pill. There are prevention methods when it comes to pregnancy and relationships that should have been used a long time ago.

For your Hutgreeen's case I think it was part fault of the person who let her get near an aircraft without the necessary training and maybe they should give them more training or effective training. It's like give the keys of your car to a kid who can't drive and the kid will obviously crash because he doesn't know how to drive. It's the kid' fault, but also the mother's fault because she shouldn't have given him the keys to the car.
Not all women have physical constraints and I don't think that only because some do have that all should be considered as having physical constraints.

To your fourth argument about "Men's clear physical superiority" Well I already gave mentioned that women with the correct training can perform just as well or even better than men and it was researched by the military.
For the rape argument. When a women enters the military I suppose that thy tell you what you're getting into right? That you may get shot, then hot weather, the training, death, etc. I believe Women are aware of what the consequences of entering may be, which include rape and torture. You cannot assure that they are gonna handle it, but if women are willing to risk it then let them, it's their decision not yours. When you tell them about this consequences they may quit, but hey you don't accept them now what's it going to matter if they quit, let them at least have a choice to risk the consequences or to live and be safe of those. Also men are exposed to this kinds of threats, maybe not rape, but still.
Gileandos

Con

I want to thank my opponent for this debate but also encourage her to create a foundation for her opinions.
I counted 8 statements of “I think”.

I do not believe any foundation was given for my opponent’s opinions.

1)
The Rape Factor:

We saw that my opponent felt that women should be allowed to risk rape and POW child bearing.
We are not discussing if women are gutsy enough and if they “can” or if they desire to have such a risk taken upon their person.

Each soldier goes through a basic training for capture and interrogation. Certain combat roles go through a much more extensive training. The more intelligence the combat role possesses the more of a liability that person becomes.

There is zero training for a rape scenario. There is zero training for a child bearing scenario.

The risks to our nation (much less the moral problem here) are greatly increased in this scenario. We cannot begin to ascertain if a woman could handle such a situation.

To respond with a statement like:
“You cannot assure that they are gonna handle it, but if women are willing to risk it then let them, it's their decision not yours”

This misses the heart of the above argument.
A lot of people “feel” they could climb Mt. Everest. They have zero training. What fool would risk such a climb with zero training.

With zero ability to train for rape torture and child bearing within enemy hands how can we ever state there is zero risk to our intelligence and this should be a woman’s right to choose?

How about unit cohesion? If our enemy knows we are heavily feminized, they broadcast to our troops that the women will be captured, will be raped and their children will be raised to serve the enemies regime….

Imagine the moral problems the males have within the troops. They will work very hard to protect the women. It is in their nature.

It will no longer function as a proper military unit.

2)
The command factor and unit cohesion
I do not think we saw a convincing argument from my opponent.
My opponent thinks that women will not tolerate disrespect…

Really? So all the women that stay in abusive relationships are just “laying down the law”?

Men have a hard time gaining the respect of other men.

This just adds a layer of command problem that an army would only want to deal with under the worst circumstances. (An invasion of a superior army)

Concerning Romance:
My opponent states:
When it comes to Combat Romance I think that men and women should only meet when it comes strictly to business”

Is my opponent under the impression that when the Dwight Eisenhower set sail the Captain announced over the PA “Let’s get it on, baby!”

No. There were clear rules that were already in place prohibiting such actions by all on board. However, the presence of women on board clearly began to erode the order on board the ship and the effectiveness of the commander and military rules.

Men were more concerned with the women than the job and the consequences of the command.

3)
The bar will be lowered for women to be allowed into the combat positions

I again do not feel that my opponent’s response that Hultgreen should have been better trained and that it is the command’s fault…. addresses the contention.

Because that is exactly my contention. The bar was lowered and a person who should have never been allowed to fly the plane was given a combat position due to political pressure to buy votes rather than actual ability.

Women have as yet not shown themselves to be particularly capable in any area and it required political pressure to gain the combat positions that have lead to many problems.

4)
Men’s clear physical superiority
My opponents states that she has already addressed this and the military agrees with her----

I cited the American military commission in 1992 which does not agree with her.

I have cited Maj Gen Ron-Tal who was the leading advocate for female integration into the Israeli Army for the last few decades. He now states that women’s roles should not only not expand but also be decreased.

Please present this scientific military data that supports your claim.

If there was any truth to your claim why are there not an equal number of women in the NFL? Men’s wrestling? I could go on and on.

Your claim is not factual and merely your desire.

That is not to say that women have not shown to be superior when it comes to cooking, interior design, child rearing, nurturing, nursing etc..

Physical prowess is scientifically and empirically obvious despite feminized agendas wanting to pull the wool over your eyes.

5)
Enemies emboldened

We saw no argument from my opponent that would lead us to the opposite conclusion of an enemy being emboldened when it comes to fighting a feminized army.

The resolution is clearly negated.
Debate Round No. 3
laleona89

Pro

For the rape situation. I'm pretty sure that men can also be raped. Does the military prepare men for rape? The military doesn't prepare men for rape, but only for torture or physical abuse and they still let them go into combat. Men have the same chance of being raped as a way of torture and it isn't any easier for them than for women. You can't train someone for abuse, torture or rape, but you can try and prepare them, but you cannot train someone for this type of things. And in you're argument you compare the Mt. Everest to rape. I mean come on, they have nothing in common. There actually is a way to train someone to climb a mountain and even the Everest, but there is no such thing as training for rape.

In your second argument you state "So all women that stay in abusive relationships are just 'laying down the law?'" Well, a woman in a abusive relationships is not the same as a woman who is disrespected by men in the military. Women are not all the same, and some will tolerate disrespect or abuse, but that does not mean that all women are the same. Why should you exclude women in general when they some be cut for the job, there are actually a lot of strong women who can defend and stand up for themselves.

"Because that is exactly my contention. The bar was lowered and a person who should have never been allowed to fly the plane was given a combat position due to political pressure to buy votes rather than actual ability."

Well, its not their fault that they were given a role just because important people let political pressure get to them. The could have still gotten votes just by adding women to combat roles, but you must specify that not all women are cut for the job, but some are. If a woman is given a role is because they deserve it and because they have been trained for that role and because they can fulfill it, not because of convenience.

For your enemies emboldened argument:

There has never been a case in which the enemy is emboldened because women have joined the army. There hasn't been an opportunity for it to happen due to women not being included into direct combat or combat roles. So, until you can some up with evidence that the enemies' army has been emboldened before by including women into the army then the argument is useless due to your lack of proof.
Gileandos

Con

I thank my opponent for her post.
I want to iterate that again in this new round I do not feel my opponent has offered any good reasons to affirm the resolution.

Especially considering:

- We have no citations that confirm her opinion

- And I have provided several citations confirming the scientific and legitimate restriction of females both in the Israeli and American governments. I could go to more country citations but that seems sufficient, as nothing has been called into question.

1) Concerning the Rape Factor:
My opponent has again taken issue with this clear and obvious fact.

She states:

“The military doesn't prepare men for rape, but only for torture or physical abuse and they still let them go into combat”

A)
I want to first point out that my opponent does nothing in trying to deny the childbearing aspect of this problem. The hormonal challenges, emotional challenges and even moral challenges that accompany bearing a child in POW situation is a HUGE problem.

Not to mention just the threat from the enemy that the children will be raised by the enemy and turned into mini soldiers. They do not have to execute on such a threat to have it to be a major impact. Unit cohesion would be at an all time low as men try to protect their women.

B)
I feel that my opponent will need to think through the major differences between a woman and a man being raped.
Comparison:
Female rape factor –

- Likelyhood is near certainty for any woman to be raped in a POW setting. Whether she posseses intelligence desired by the enemy or not and fellow soldiers would likely applaud and participate with female rape.

Male rape factor –
- A man is far far far far less likely to be raped as a POW. It would require a culture of prison guards that did not mind man on man rape. Fellow soldiers would likely look down on male on male rape, especially considering our current enemies are very anti-homosexual cultures.
Female rape factor –
- The stigma and rejection from a male companion a woman would receive upon return from a POW status would be potent. A male companion would handle any other form of torture endured rather well. This form holds a stigma that would be much much harder to overcome. We risk a large subculture and a portion of our combat returning soldiers that would damage a normal function of society.

Male rape factor –
Their female companions would not reject men if they had been repeatedly raped.

Female rape factor -
- A woman will experience the rape in a vastly more complex emotional state

Male rape factor –

- A man typically is not overly concerned with being raped. Kneecaps being flipped off with a screwdriver I would be far more concerned about.

C)
To compound this a more likely scenario for men will be genitalia removal. Though dismemberment cannot be duplicated during training it is indeed trained for.

Contrary to my opponent’s statements, certain roles do train for torture via “insertion”. However, it is not commonly practiced by our enemies. Far more effective means would be water-boarding, sleep deprivation and drug induction.

I have seen no compelling reason that would allow us to set aside these clear differences from a male and female enduring rape.
2)The command factor and unit cohesion
I again do not believe this stands even remotely contested.
My opponent only takes on a single point here and does nothing to deny this point rife with clear undebated points.

My opponent merely points out:
Women are not all the same, and some will tolerate disrespect or abuse, but that does not mean that all women are the same”

I believe that I was clear that women do not “naturally” command the respect of men. Men do not “naturally” give respect to women. Women and men both will “naturally” follow men. It is the way our nature has worked for eons.

These stand unrefuted:

a.Men are far less inclined to respect or listen to women in the field.

b.There have been only a few exceptions. Religious reasons would be one.

c.It is a concept verified by any man. I would not follow a woman to the same degree. The hurdles for a normal man to overcome when earning other men’s respect is exacerbated with a woman in a command role.

d.Combat romance will negatively affect combat divisions. Men will begin posturing and dividing over the affections of a woman rather than becoming more cohesive.

e.Pregnancies have forced ships like the USS Dwight Eisenhower to return to port due to 15 pregnancies. This adds an element to command during wars beyond comprehensible. This single event earned the Eisenhower the nickname “the love boat”.

3) Concerning the lowered Bar:

We have see clear examples of the bar being lowered.

My opponent has only taken issue with the political one. She has not refuted the scientific evidence given by Maj Gen Ron-Tal where women are dozens of percentage points more likely to physically develop stress fractures from weight loads.

As to the political one, that is a problem with politics yes but they realized the bar had to be lowered to actually pander. It proves my point. They could not get/find “one” capable candidate of all of the “equal” female contenders?

My point is made?

4) Men’s clear physical superiority:

We saw none of the scientific data refuted.

This stands as affirmed.

Men are indeed physically superior.

5) Emboldened enemies:

My opponent here states finally:

“There has never been a case in which the enemy is emboldened because women have joined the army. There hasn't been an opportunity for it to happen due to women not being included into direct combat or combat roles. So, until you can some up with evidence that the enemies' army has been emboldened before by including women into the army then the argument is useless due to your lack of proof”

Ignoring the clear consent that my opponent gives that never in history before has a nation thought women in combat was a good idea…..for obvious reasons.

We can look to clear examples where men and women have competed in sports.

I will just use one example due to character constraints.

Serena and Venus Williams stated that they could beat any male tennis player in the main circuit. She challenged anyone in the top 200.

Number 203 was “emboldened” for a quick defeat and easy win. He was so bold he clearly did not take the match seriously.

I will cite:

“During the 1998 Australian Open, Serena and her older sister, Venus, boasted that they could beat any man ranked outside the world's top 200. Karsten Braasch, a German ranked No 203 (his highest ranking was No 38), accepted the challenge. Braasch, who was already out of the tournament, played a round of golf in the morning, drank a couple of beers, smoked a few cigarettes, and then played the Williams sisters for a set each, one after the other. He defeated Serena, 6-1, and Venus, 6-2.”

http://www.independent.co.uk...

(There are other circumstances as well on this cite just for Tennis examples)

I do not feel men are that terribly threatened by the “best” women have to offer.

Braasch was clearly emboldened by the challenge and took it with little seriousness.

How much more so, when our enemies have the above factual data and they take this factual evidence and encounter a feminized army? Should they be overly concerned? Or should they drink a few beers, smoke a few cigs, play some golf and launch an assualt in the afternoon?

Conclusion:

The resolution was never proven by my opponent. The resolution stands negated for this debate.
Debate Round No. 4
31 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by spazz 4 years ago
spazz
men are raped just as must as women in the military
here are some of the cases supporting rape against men
Posted by Gileandos 6 years ago
Gileandos
@Seraine,
I myself avoid making comparisons of unfit men to fit women. You are not allowed into the Military even as a man if you do not have a certain level of fitness.
The comparison would start "all things being equal" and working from there. All things being equal, a woman of the same age, height and training routine will be significantly inferior to the same male. You see the bones capacity for weightload stress to be 25-35% lower than a mans etc...
Under extreme conditions the woman's performance deteriates rapidly as man conditions need a clear edge to be superior.
Some men genetically do not make good soldiers and they are appropriately washed out of key combat roles.
We do not allow blind men, dwarfs etc just assume any combat role they desire.
Posted by seraine 6 years ago
seraine
@Gileandos

What about physically fit women who are more qualified than many men? As long as they pass the tests, I don't see anything wrong with it.

Also, I know plenty of girls who are more physically fit than many boys in our school, and I do not see a reason to deny somebody just because a certain percentage of women prefer to be mothers and cooks.
Posted by Gileandos 6 years ago
Gileandos
@Lick,
I apologize if you feel that the statement was about stereotyping. Please engage in a more careful rereading.

There is nothing stereotypical about women's better ability at nurturing, comforting, discriminating palate, enhanced color perception, and ability to teach young children.
These are clear scientifically validated strengths.

I myself score a 1 out of 10 in color perception, however my depth perception I score a 10 out of 10.
My wife is the opposite. She scored a 10 on color and a 2 on depth.

Women are predominately hired for these roles due to their strengths.
Men will be hired for the NFL, jobs lifting more than 100 lbs etc.

Why do men like recreational hunting and fishing far far far more than women?
Why does Joann Fabrics and Hancock fabrics exist? To cater to mens keen sense of sewing? Because women are so abundantly forced at gunpoint to take up a needle and thread? My wife loves sewing. I love hunting. You have to drag her out of a fabric store.

Somethings are in a persons nature, mental makeup. However this is NOT stereotyping. (Like she should be in a kitchen because she I say all women should be in the kitchen) This is clearly pointed to predispositions and roles of strength.

Are you stating that a donkey would be an equal to a warhorse? Such a claim would be absurd and I would not need to offer any scientific proof, so as to prove anyone that made such a claim was wrong.

Or that an Alpine Goat should be sheared for its wool just like an Angora Goat? Again this is absurd.

Why are you special pleading that an exception should be made for human females? Why lower yourself to ad hominems (though I thank you for rescinding the statement) and undisciplined rhetoric.

To place women in a combat role that she is not equipped for naturally is a suicidal trend to a nation.

Please let me know if this offered more clarity.
Posted by Gileandos 6 years ago
Gileandos
@Ike,
Lick made a crass ad hominem by equivocating my argument (and my character) to the vulgar process of douching.

She relented but continued with using undisciplined rhetoric. She proceed to dismiss my obviously factual viewpoint via calling it "brainwashed."

She did nothing to prove that indeed I was brainwashed.

I merely pointed to a distortion in her viewpoint via cultural intake of "super powered" women.
This is a factual statement.

I can make a factual statement and it not be well received.

An atheist can tell a muslim allah does not exist. It will not be well received and indeed the atheist could get beheaded.
Some statements are unable to be "couched" through political jargon. The art of conversion is inadequate to the task of stopping a factual statement from offending someone.

I provided clear evidence of programming via media. We have seen such sad occurrences before like the Columbine Shootings and VA Tech Shootings.

This generation has some of the weirdest ideas of reality ever known to a culture. I even had a person believe that the world of the Avatar movie actually indeed existed at one time here on our earth, but we killed our Mother. (That was actually in the movie.)

My claim is from factual data and personal experience.

Look at Lick's claim.

That some rich powerful men are brainwashing me to see that men are stronger than women---
Posted by Lickdafoot 6 years ago
Lickdafoot
Gileandos, you are missing the point.

Men are stronger than women. They are built different. They have more testosterone. what does this have to do with roles?

Different bodies don't mean that the only roles that women can take on are those ones involving home and family. And it is not only stereotyping women, it is putting restrictions on your own sex, making these roles seen as weak and the person who partakes in them, especially in front of other men, is somehow less of a man.

The thing is, we have all been brainwashed that we should fit into these roles, that women are inferior. for thousands of years society has progressed to fit into these viewpoints that arise out of the ego of a couple powerful, corrupt men and their desire to inflict their ideas on others at all costs. this is where so many of the relationship issues between men and women arise from.

say what you want, but putting people into boxes and labeling their roles is simply rather ignorant.
Posted by 000ike 6 years ago
000ike
Calling someone's view distorted is a contradiction of the "crass and undisciplined rhetoric" you denounced only a few sentences earlier. Please be more consistent. I personally am a person who does not accept unfairness and inequality without just basis, no matter who the injustice affects. You assert that women cannot actually do these things. Please start providing scientific proof of your claims, else they're nothing more than unwelcome opinions. Where is the proof that a woman cannot fight, handle the battlefield, cannot defeat the men of the opposing army etc. I'm not saying you're wrong, I just want to see your proof.
Posted by Gileandos 6 years ago
Gileandos
Larz,
You rightly point to a point that there is a decreasing gap due to technology with regards to certain military positions. Many of those held by women today.
We were discussing the inclusion of women to combat roles. Technology at our current level does not negate the need for physical training.
Most men wash out of the advanced training roles as well. Heck most do not even apply.

There will always be certain roles that are combat "related" that women can generally fill.

Until we reach technological bionics that allow for equal capacity no matter the "frame" women will still be physically deficient in nearly all combat roles.

Additionally, if a pilot is shot down behind enemy lines it is back to basics. The male soldier who we invested the same dollars and training in has a higher likleyhood of survival.

Once that tech is striped away--- We risk the lives of those soldiers by telling them they are equally capable. It is a moral qualm.
It is a practical qualm is that the training costs are identical for a deficient product resulting from those same costs.
It is only morally and practically the "right" thing to do when we have no other choice as in an invasion with a force of superior numbers.
If Mexico invaded us we obviously would not have the same need.
Posted by Gileandos 6 years ago
Gileandos
I thank you for the recognition of the "non-douche" nature of my debate.

I would like to recommend that in the future that such crass and undisciplined rhetoric be avoided.

I do still take issue with the statement that I have been brainwashed.

Where does your distorted view of the capabilities of women come from? Movies?
The Underworld revolution heroine?
Doomsday?
Tomb Raider?
Mr and Mrs Smith?

Women (especially these women) cannot actually do these things. Is that realized by people who call the people, like myself, who hold to an obvious scientific viewpoint--- brainwashed?

I would like to put forward that you have a distorted view. Have you ever personally witnessed such feats as in the movies performed by any women in your life?

It is this same attitude that got Serena and Venus williams spanked by Braasch.

It just isn't true.

If China invades, I am afraid that half of our nations women will demand to do "the long haul" operations rather than holding down the fort.

We will lose the war due to such obvious shortcomings. A women will be less able to hike long distances, under brutal conditions, with a massive weightload.

They better serve the team by holding the trenches for the men to return to a well fortified position.

I again state.
"Ducks are better at flying than a fish and a fish is better at swimming.
It does not mean that a duck cannot swim or that a fish cannot fly.

But the qualitative approach to these two seperate tasks, by these two seperate entities is VERY obvious."
Posted by Lickdafoot 6 years ago
Lickdafoot
Gileandos,

I should not have been so harsh. You are most likely not a douche, but probably misguided with what you say and how others perceive it. its not exactly your fault, thousands of years of brainwashing does that to people, and military brainwashing on top of that for you.

you picked the most stereotypical roles which is offensive. those roles aren't always for women.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Calvincambridge 5 years ago
Calvincambridge
laleona89GileandosTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: The men being raped argument made me laugh if she was talking about women raping men thats a pleasure not a torture
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
laleona89GileandosTied
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: I do not think that the rape factor should have been such a factor in this debate. Con argued that men are physically superior to women, but thats out of the ENTIRE population. I have met women who could easily kick my ass and probably most men. The Bar wouldnt necessarily be lowered just so that more women could get in either. Contender also attacked the pros use of opinions more than he should have so conduct went to Pro as well.
Vote Placed by seraine 6 years ago
seraine
laleona89GileandosTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had too much speculation and and didn't do a good job of refuting Con's points. Arguments and sources to con.
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 6 years ago
quarterexchange
laleona89GileandosTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: The major point that convinces me is the fact that women get pregnant regardless of the precautions available. If this occurs on a nuclear submarine or a carrier on a mission then they would be forced to "turn around" or surface which in many instances can have severe implications. It doesn't matter if we fire the women and men who become pregnant, it still happens regardless and the only way to eliminate that risk entirely is to ban women in such positions altogether.
Vote Placed by Lickdafoot 6 years ago
Lickdafoot
laleona89GileandosTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was doing great until the cringeworthy comment "That is not to say that women have not shown to be superior when it comes to cooking, interior design, child rearing, nurturing, nursing etc." really? Regardless, Con's points were stronger. He used facts where Pro used speculation. None of his arguments were effectively refuted and he had sources.
Vote Placed by larztheloser 6 years ago
larztheloser
laleona89GileandosTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: A super-good debate! Pro should use more sources to back up her assertions. Both sides missed crucial arguments of their opponents - for instance, the deceasing importance of strength and men having more strength. Pro made all the right points, but they weren't convincing as they were largely asserted. Con was refuted well, but only by assertion. Neg win, but pro gets conduct as a sympathy vote for her argumentation.
Vote Placed by mongeese 6 years ago
mongeese
laleona89GileandosTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments were much better sourced, based in fact rather than opinion, with many arguments left improperly refuted or not refuted at all.
Vote Placed by 000ike 6 years ago
000ike
laleona89GileandosTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro needs a bit more debating experience. I believe a bit of research on pro's part could have made her case far more powerful. Her argument was purely subjective and derived from personal opinions without tangible evidence of their credibility. Con on the other hand sometimes came across as sexist and a bit near-sighted about gender division. He almost lost conduct for it, but Pro did not take advantage of this. Ultimately, pro did not successfully affirm the resolution. So, points go to Con.