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

Should women be allowed to serve in equal combat roles in armed forces?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 2/14/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 818 times Debate No: 45944
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




For the record I'm not sexist in any type of way. but here goes :)

Argument: more often than not... men are physically superior to woman, so there are some combat roles in the armed forces to where they cannot serve equally.

Now we all know woman aren't weak and defenseless as society tries to make them out to be. but still they simply cannot serve the same roles equally. One role I am talking about is the "BATTLE FIELD", in case I wasn't clear.

hopefully someone accepts this.... I'm trying to build experience :)


Sure, I'll play devil's advocate.

The BOP is going to rest on my opponent. He has to prove why women should not be allowed to serve in equal combat roles as males. I will be refuting his arguments, as the only real argument for my side rather than against his that I could make is "there's no solid reason not to", which leads us back to here. Let's save some time, shall we?

My opponent's sole argument is that men are, on average, physically superior to women, therefore women should not be allowed to perform combat roles. There's a few problems with this:

First, this doesn't prove a whole lot. Even if I buy that this is true, which I will, it doesn't give us a reason to reject those who go above the average their ability and chance to hang with the big boys.

Secondly, the military is actively trying to solve this problem. By 2016 all brances of the military plan to have revised the standards for acceptance to be equal across the board - the same for both men and women. This will weed out those who can't make the cut and just leaves us with well-qualified soliders, both men and women.

Since that's really the only argument my opponent makes, I'll kick it back over to him.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you pro for accepting, also I apologize for not making myself more clear.

What I am arguing is that women shouldn't serve on the "front lines" with men

I'll try to explain this as best I can

lets say a man and a woman solder rush into battle,and the man get wounded. the female solder would then have to carry her male comrade off the battle field. now many would ask why would this be a problem. the reason why it would be a problem is because many woman find it difficult to lift a full grown man, considering most woman in the force lift <<<< weightlifting woman<<<< weight chart for military

again I apologize for not being clear, we all know that there are alot of woman who can "hang" with the "big boys". because it is evident that they can. I'm only saying there will be a problem with them fight along side on the "front lines."I wasn't really trying to say they aren't equal in aspect, just there will be complications on the battle field.


I'm honestly a little unsure what to say here. The problem with my opponent's clarification is that it's essentially the same argument. Women aren't as physically capable as men, therefore shouldn't be on the same combat roles as males.

My two responses still apply here. For one, there are plenty of women who CAN lift men that want to be on the front lines. While the average girl, admittedly, cannot lift the average guy, there's no reason to deny those who are above the average and capable of doing this their opportunity.

For two, the military is trying to refine and change their standards of acceptance to weed out those who woulnd't be able to do this. This means that if women were to gain eligibility for this "front line" combat role, that they would be phsically capable of doing everything needed to be done, regardless of gender.

My opponent never responded to either of these refutations, so extend them clearly across.
Debate Round No. 2


markeice_patrick forfeited this round.


Well damn. I guess thats it then.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by ESocialBookworm 2 years ago
If I could vote, I would vote for Pro.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cermank 2 years ago
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: Pro successfully refuted both the arguments, didn't rely on emotions (one up) which usually weaken sexism debates. Con forfeited so conduct goes to Pro.