Should women be allowed to fight on the front lines?
Debate Rounds (3)
I. The Declaration of Independence was written in a time where the world was a very different place. I personally think Men and Women are equal. But in different ways, A women is shown to have on average higher self and emotional knowledge. Again on average skills such as nurturing and organization tend to come easier to women. On the other hand, Men are not built for childbirth. So they will naturally more than often be bigger, stronger, and more durable than woman.
II. Yes men are more likely to commit suicide. The majority of men who commit suicide are older white males, not young men in the army.
III. If this study is correct, there are also more women in the world than men. Unless the study is irregardless of population and measures per capita.
IV. I don't understand what you mean here, people on the front lines don't plan much you know. Yes the officers might be able to make some choices but people higher up the chain make most of the decisions. I think you should read up on the US army chain of command.
V. Women are not by any stretch of the imagination inferior to men. They are different and the skills of women do not lie in combat or fighting but support roles and nurturing. Its gender roles not sexism why do you think almost exclusively men have served in the armed forces for 10s of thousands of years.
Men are better suited for combat roles and therefore women should not serve on the frontlines. Women have a quote from a new york times article sums this up perfectly
Brig. Gen. Wilma Vaught
U.S. Air Force (Retired)
"The nation's pride in our military women does not justify assignments in direct ground combat, which involves more than the experience of being in danger, or even the risk of ambush.
Forget about Lara Croft, and think about real-life infantry, Marines, and Special Operations Forces that engage the enemy in places like Fallujah in Iraq. These men carry electronic equipment, weapons, ammunition, heavy body armor, and water weighing 50 to 100 pounds. Such burdens would weigh more heavily on smaller female soldiers who have, on average, 45 to 50 percent less upper-body strength and 25 to 30 percent less aerobic capacity, which is essential for endurance.
In the Army's own surveys, 90 percent of enlisted women have said they oppose involuntary combat assignments on the same basis as men. They know that training for female soldiers is modified to compensate for physical differences, but there can be no modifications on the battlefield.
In direct combat, women would not have an equal opportunity to survive, or to help fellow soldiers survive.
Even if physical capabilities were objectively measured and equal, coed combat assignments would affect discipline and unit cohesion. Women lose more duty time due to medical issues, including pregnancy, and their absence would be particularly disruptive in combat units where concentration and mutual trust are essential for survival.
At times, we have no choice about sending young men to war, but we do have a choice when it comes to sending young women. Changing that would be a mistake."
with all due respect, your argument on the Declaration of Independence being outdated is just as invalid as jhon123's argument that printed books are outdated. If not for the Declaration, we would probably not be discussing this right now. But back to the debate at hand:
1. The rate of suicidal young men is increasing rapidly. More young men are committing suicide than ever before.
2. The study was per capita so this argument is irrelevant.
3. I'm talking about those split second decisions of life or death that a higher officer would not be able to make.
4. Maybe if you men were not so sexist when America was first created, then women would have the experience too. But regardless of that, men started out being able to be on the front lines. In order for women to gain the experience that men have, they must be allowed to fight in combat situations.
5. This quote says nothing about what your average female recruit thinks. It says everything about the opinion of a female general.
And on a different note, if women are not allowed to fight on the front lines, do you honestly think that they would be the best possible candidates for a high ranking officer position? They need the experience of the average soldier in the front and behind the scenes to be able to make good decisions for the people below them.
II. I would like to know where you got this information from, I will have multiple sources at the bottom linking to studies on suicide.
III. Split second choices of life and death have nothing to do with tactics and strategy. The military is not about the individual, but the whole. And its not like women have some higher ability of processing survival.
IV. You really worded that to be possibly taken as an offensive statement, you don't want points taken off for conduct do you? I don't understand what your saying here at all. Men have evolved for millions of years to hunt and fight wars, women have not. Its not a matter of experience its a matter of basic human anatomy.
V. Plenty of women don't want to serve on the front lines, the majority of support for this is from people not in the military. People who have not served on the front lines have directed armies for thousands of years. You think trained strategists go out to battle?
Men plan wars, men fight wars. Women might attain a general rank from being a lawyer or transportation expert that help with some of the support roles for the military. They aren't involved with any of the actual fighting, not even that many women are engineers or other front line support roles. Mostly just things that happen far behind the lines. History of warfare has been fine as it is. Lets leave the status quo as it is.
HermonteKitteh forfeited this round.
first and foremost I forgot to put up sources to suicide studies which I had said I would and forgot.
The general consensus is that older white males with firearm access commit suicide. Onto my main argument.
I. A quote from wikipedia on the issue
"Gross measures of body strength suggest a 40-50% difference in upper body strength between the sexes, and a 20-30% difference in lower body strength."
An enormous difference in strength and durability. Males also have stronger bones and more blood flow and thicker skin with less pain receptors, differences like these simply prove that there is to much of a difference in how men and women are built to let women serve in combat situations.
Yes there might be a rare exception, but for the most part. Men are simply better for front line combat. Duties far behind the lines is where women can help if they want to serve in the army. And no an argument over it being a matter of civil rights is illogical, African American males had every right to serve in the army because they were men with very little differences from Caucasian Males. Note how that is not an entire gender gap. Racial differences make up only 1% of our genetics. Gender makes up much much more.
VOTE FOR THE STATUS QUO, VOTE CON!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 3 years 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||1|
Reasons for voting decision: FF
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.