The Instigator
DebateClub666
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Blade-of-Truth
Pro (for)
Winning
17 Points

Should women be allowed to serve in Military Combat?

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 3 votes the winner is...
Blade-of-Truth
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/30/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,147 times Debate No: 66094
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (3)

 

DebateClub666

Con

As many of us know, there are thousands of women that serve in today's military, either in active duty or as a reservist. However, one massive question has been raised: should women be allowed to serve in combat situations? I say no. Why? Because most women are weaker and less equipped to handle stress than men are. It's not sexism, it's science.
Blade-of-Truth

Pro

I accept the debate. Please begin.
Debate Round No. 1
DebateClub666

Con

Thank you for accepting this debate. Let us begin.

I believe women should not be allowed to serve in combat for a few reasons:

1) In the Physical and Mental stress tests, not all women will be able to make it. They may show that they can withstand it, but they'll come home and will sink down into chronic depression (my cousin went through that same stress)
2) In the military, you'll have to carry between 60 and 130 pounds of gear, including your rifle, your sidearm, ammo clips for both weapons, a radio, a backpack, grenades, and any other relevant gear. Even if women can carry that, can they carry all that equipment while running across a street with a rain of bullets whizzing by them? Also, imagine if they are carrying a 180+ pound wounded man who is also carrying between 60-130 pounds of gear. It's almost physically impossible.
3) According to several studies that included both men and women, it was discovered that women were more likely to develop Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) than men.
Blade-of-Truth

Pro

I thank my opponent for their speedy round. I will provide rebuttals to the three arguments presented by Con, followed by my own arguments.

I. Chronic Depression

My opponent makes the terrible mistake of assuming that because something happened to his cousin, it'll happen to every woman. This is nothing more than a misguided opinion of my opponent.

Of course some woman won't be able to make it through the physical and mental stress-tests. That's also the case for some men. It's a method the army uses for weeding out those who would not, or cannot, perform well in certain scenarios. It's important to realize though that it's not just woman who fail these things, but men as well. It's also important to understand that being exposed to such things might not necessarily lead to depression. While it happened to your cousin, that doesn't mean it will happen to everyone who goes through these things.

Furthermore, Con fails to consider the woman that do and already have passed those tests:



If my opponent really wants to continue arguing this, then Con must provide proof that every woman who goes through the physical and mental tests will return with depression. If Con cannot do that, then this argument is defeated due to having no valid grounds to base itself on.

II. Carrying Gear

My opponent argues that woman cannot carry the 60-130 pound bags of gear, and that even if they could, they wouldn't be able to carry a wounded solider on top of all that. Let me just say, not every guy can carry such weight either. This is, again, working under the faulty assumption that everyone can be grouped together. The strength of humans can vary greatly from person to person. To assume that they would come into a situation where they need to carry 300+ pounds of stuff is unreasonable at best and ludicrous at worst.

Let's not forget that there are some incredibly strong women in our country:





Let's also not dismiss the fact that the women ARE subjected to boot camp before entering into active duty. So, the women that pass rightfully qualified just as every man who passed qualified. They've met the standards the U.S. Army set forth and are therefore welcomed into active duty as full-time soldiers. Can every woman carry the same as every man? No, just as every man cannot carry the same as the man next to him. It's pointless to argue that they can't carry certain weight when it's just an assumption given by Con. In truth, there are woman much stronger than the average man in terms of lifting weights, like the two ladies I just shared above.

Con will need to prove that there are no women who could carry such loads of weight. Otherwise, this point is also nothing more than a baseless assumption which holds no ground in this debate.

III. PTSD

My opponent started this line of argumentation by saying "according to several studies" but then failed to present the actual studies themselves. I can just as easily say that "according to several studies Bigfoot is an alien" but without the actual studies presenting proof, there is no reason for anyone to accept my claim as valid. This is the same for you, there is no reason for either myself or the audience to accept your claim regarding PTSD as valid when you don't give any sources to validate such a claim.

Until Con presents sources, there is no reason to even acknowledge such a claim as it is fundamentally unproven by Con.

Arguments

IV. Woman are capable, and ready to serve their country.

As I pointed out in a previous rebuttals, woman who meet the standards set forth by the U.S. Army are fully capable of serving for their country. In this case, the standards would be meeting the requirement and overcoming the challenges found in boot camp and basic training. [1] I see no reason why we shouldn't allow women to enter the army and serve our fine nation when they've overcome each challenge presented to them. They, at that point, have quite literally proven to the army that they are able to handle the duties of being a soldier. If they weren't ready or capable, they wouldn't have passed such training.

[1] http://www.military.com...

V. Other armies allow women to serve.

There are two implications that come attached to this argument.

1- Nations other than the United States allow women to serve in the army.

2 - Allowing women to serve drastically increases the number of units available during wartime.

In china, the people's liberation army is the largest standing army in the world. [2] In fact, over 2 million of their 300 million-strong army is women. In Israel, every woman is obligated for a mandatory military service requirement. The fact that women have served in armies for nearly 3,000 years is not something to be taken lightly. [3]

By not allowing women into our military, not only would we be behind the curve in relation to other nations, but we'd also be losing a decent portion of our potential soldiers that could be of use in times of war or military engagements. Once more, it'd actually be harmful rather than beneficial to not allow women to serve.

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

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

In closing,

I have presented rebuttals for each argument raised by Con, as well as introduce two additional arguments of my own. I now return the floor to Con and await the response.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
DebateClub666

Con

Before I continue my argument, let me say this: Wikipedia is not a reliable source because of its constant allowing of their viewers to edit the content to their own advantage. Hence the reason I do not trust such a thing.

1) Women's Physical Capacity

I admit that there are a few women in the country who are quite able to compete physically against other women and against men. However, that doesn't mean that all of them are. Due to health concerns or other reasons, women are allowed to bypass the boot camp training (Example: West Point Officer Academy). As far as international skill goes, women are allowed in china and Israel, yes. There are over 200 countries that do not allow women in the military (Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com...)

2) Women's Mental Capacity
Pro asked for a source for the "studies" that I mentioned before. I may now present one such study from the Veteran's Affairs website. They say that 5 in 10 women suffer traumatic situations while in combat. They say that women are more likely to suffer from PTSD and receive the same symptoms that men do.

For the full article, please visit this website: http://www.ptsd.va.gov...

3) Covering the Miscellaneous

Gear and how it affects the military personnel, especially women: http://seattletimes.com...

How much damage the recent wars have done on women
http://www.washingtonpost.com...

I will be ready for another response.
Blade-of-Truth

Pro

My opponent starts off immediately by claiming that wikipedia is not a reliable source. While I would normally agree, I believe it depends greatly on what the actual information IS. When it's a commonly accepted thing, I doubt wikipedia will have too much false-information. Perhaps on topics that aren't well-understood or very clear, then yeah, having sources other than wikipedia might be necessary. In my case though, I used wikipedia for China's army and the history of women serving in the military. I believe those aren't very commonly debated topics, thus the information provided by Wikipedia would be reliable enough. Since my opponent doesn't believe so, I will share additional links showing that China is the largest standing army and has over 2 million women in it, and that women have been serving in militaries throughout history for nearly 3.000 years.

Largest standing army (China):

1) http://www.mapsofworld.com...

2) http://www.globalfirepower.com...

3) http://www.curiosityaroused.com...

4) http://paulchong.net...

5) https://www.cia.gov...

Women serving in armies for over 3,000 years:

1) http://serendip.brynmawr.edu...

2) http://www.womensmemorial.org...

3) http://www.buzzfeed.com...

4) http://www.lothene.org...

5) http://www.nationaljournal.com...

6) http://www.lothene.org...

Now, I believe I have shared more than enough sources to confirm the validity of both claims I made previously while utilizing wikipedia as a source. Hopefully my opponent won't find it distasteful that I included so many sources, but I honestly don't believe he has any room to deny either of those claims now that I've shown the validity of such claims utilizing several other sources.

I. Women's physical capacity

My opponent claims that because all women can't compete with men, they shouldn't be allowed into combat. This fails to consider the women that can compete. If a woman can't compete, or pass boot camp and basic training, then they rightfully don't belong in the military. It's the same for any man who can't make it through that process, they rightfully don't belong in combat. The problem with Con's stance is that he fails to consider the women that can compete with the men and do, infact, complete the training/meet the standards the army set forth. Why shouldn't they be allowed to fight? There is literally no good reason to stop a woman, who is fully capable of serving her nation in combat, from doing so.

My opponent previously claimed it was because they would come home depressed, but I've already shown the faulty logic of that assumption-based claim. Just because something happened to his cousin doesn't mean it would happen to every woman. My opponent hasn't provided a response to that specifically which I'd like to point out as well... Con must provide proof that every woman who goes through the physical and mental tests would return with depression. I don't believe he can do so, which is probably why he never provided a response to this challenge and instead changed the focus of this line of argumentation to physicality which I addressed in my previous paragraph.

Con further claimed that, "women are allowed to bypass the boot camp training". I've searched for some evidence to this claim since Con failed to provide any sources to back-up that claim and came up empty-handed. I'll need evidence for this claim to be seriously considered.

As for the 200 countries which don't allow women in the military, they are merely behind the curve. The women who have already passed our standards the U.S. Army sets forth in basic training and boot camp shows that women are clearly capable. These countries are losing out on great potential for increasing their standing military power, especially if there are some women in those countries who are just as capable as the men in terms of physicality and mentality. America proves to be a great resource in showing that there are women capable of fighting in our military. There is no good reason for women to not be allowed to serve our country should they be capable of meeting the standards of the military training and tests. Furthermore, considering America is the most powerful army in the world, I see no reason to accept the military standards of weaker nations as proof for why they are right and we are wrong.

II. Women's mental capacity

I thank Con for providing a source for his previous claim. Here's the problem, according to his own source:

5 in 10 women suffer traumatic situations while in combat

The fact remains that the other 5 women are just fine. This goes directly against his previous claim that every women would return with depression. In terms of majority, he doesn't even have that on his side. In fact, the source goes so far as to say:

Women are slightly less likely to experience trauma than men.

Whoa, women are less likely to experience trauma?! According to this, it seems like stronger evidence for not letting MEN serve in the military, you know, since they are MORE LIKELY to experience trauma than women.

The source then closes with:

Future studies are needed to better understand the effects of women's exposure to both combat and sexual assault.

Thus, even the study acknowledges that its information is not yet complete. My opponent relies on unfinished research...

Ultimately, this source seems to harm Con more than it helps him. It shows that women are less likely to experience trauma, which completely goes against the whole point of Con utilizing this source in the first place. It also destroys his case for every women returning with depression. At this point, I'll thank Con for defeating himself with that source.

III. Covering the Miscellaneous

Con shares another source here with the aim of showing how gear can negatively affect women. Here's the problem, it also affects men. In fact, one of the main people interviewed for the article was a 25 year old man.

"This is ridiculous," Joseph Chroniger said. "I'm only 25 years old. Arthritis is supposed to happen when you get old. What's it going to be like when I'm 50 or 60?"

...

Staff Sgt. James Knower, a wiry, 155-pound soldier from Joint Base Lewis-McChord served in Afghanistan for a year despite injuries to his arm and rotator cuff.

It seems like this issue affects both men and women, thus I see no reason why it should serve as evidence for women not being allowed in the military when this problem is not women-specific.

In fact, there was not one woman who was actually interviewed in that article/study aside from a grieving mother who had a son with issues from the gear-loads. Please take a look at the article he shared to further validate this claim.

------

In regards to the "damage" recent wars have done on women, the second article states:

Nearly a quarter of women who served in Iraq or Afghanistan reported a sexual assault, according to a study from the Department of Veteran Affairs.


The problem I have with using this as evidence to negate women's allowance in the military is that such things happen to only a minority of the women. Only 25% according to his source. That means that 75% of the women serving would suddenly not be allowed to continue their jobs or careers in the military because of a minority of women who were, unfortunately, sexually assaulted. Perhaps if this was happening to a majority of women, then it'd be grounds for dismissing women from service. To do so when only a minority are facing this issue is quite absurd though. Con will need to justify forcing the other 75% of women to quit their service.

For the record, I do believe the sexual assault issue is of the utmost importance. I do not, however, believe it is grounds for denying capable women from serving their country when it is only an issue for a minority of the women. Con will need to show otherwise.

IV. Woman are capable, and ready to serve their country.


Extend argument as it was never rebutted by Con.

V. Other armies allow women to serve.

Extend argument as it was never rebutted by Con.

In closing,

I have provided rebuttals to each of Con's challenges, including providing additional sources where they were required. I have additionally extended any and all arguments which were dropped by Con.

I now return the floor to Con.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
DebateClub666

Con

DebateClub666 forfeited this round.
Blade-of-Truth

Pro

My opponent has forfeited Round 4.

I, therefore, extend all arguments as they currently remain standing unchallenged.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
DebateClub666

Con

DebateClub666 forfeited this round.
Blade-of-Truth

Pro

My opponent has forfeited the final round.

I extend all arguments as they remain standing unchallenged.

Please vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
That's focusing on only one specific difference. The difference I was implying was athleticism and ability to perform to the standards. The training for professional sports is different from the training in the military. In the military, women who complete boot camp and basic training are just as equipped as the men to serve in combat scenarios. Are ALL the women capable of holding there own against a man in a fist-fight? Probably not, but in military combat it's usually with weapons in hand. Let's also not forget that SOME women could easily hold their own against a man in a fist-fight, so you'd need to justify not allowing those women to serve for their country if they desire to do so. I feel like you're only considering physicality when there's many more factors at work such as weapon handling, ability to focus and stay sharp, accurate aim, evasive tactics, etc...

If you'd like to continue this discussion privately, my inbox is open. Just PM me your response and we can pick it up from there. I don't generally like arguing in the comment sections of debates.
Posted by Chang29 2 years ago
Chang29
Correct, in sports a loser leaves the field in shame, in combat a loser leaves in a bag. When women are competing with men in sport, is when women should compete with men in combat.
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
Professional sports and Military combat are two entirely different things.
Posted by Chang29 2 years ago
Chang29
Since many think that women are just as capable of physical combat as men. Female athletes should compete with males, no need for separate teams.
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 2 years ago
Vajrasattva-LeRoy
MORE GIBBERISH ...

I, yes, even I, wouldn't want to try to stop a woman
from doing what she wanted to do !!!

The so-called "national debt" alone is over $18 TRILLION, & Going Up.
They're not only BANKRUPT, they're Way In The Red.
They have virtually ZERO $ for anything whatsoever.
Politicians all over the world are also having Very Severe Budget Problems.
Posted by AtheistPerson 2 years ago
AtheistPerson
#forfeit
Posted by pcgross2000 2 years ago
pcgross2000
I think women should be able to go into military combat because the US needs their intelligence, attendance, and their performance for any combat missions in regards to any raids, search/rescue, or planning/schedule
Posted by Saska 2 years ago
Saska
After reading Con's opening arguments, it's not science, it's sexism.
Posted by TheNamesFizzy 2 years ago
TheNamesFizzy
Going to let someone else take this one, as I think it could be more interesting to watch.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Tweka 2 years ago
Tweka
DebateClub666Blade-of-TruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
DebateClub666Blade-of-TruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: ff
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
DebateClub666Blade-of-TruthTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture