Should women be required to register for Selective Service?
Debate Rounds (5)
I hope to have a friendly debate with anyone who's against it!
Edit: For anyone who hasn't heard the news yet the House of Representatives approved the bill to require women to register for Selective Service.
Edit 2: Rules
Round 1: Introduction paragraph stating your views and why.
Round 2: Argument
Round 3: Counter argument
Round 4: Argument
Round 5: Conclusion no more new evidence or arguments, only counter argument.
Good argument idea, I'm excited to see your arguments!
Anyway let's get started. I support requiring women to register for Selective Service for many reasons. Previously I was a conservative until the military Defense Secretary Ash Carter opened all combat jobs to women without exceptions. I now support women registering for Selective Service to further promote the equality that feminists want.
The draft is unlikely to ever come back and it's practically impossible economically nowadays. We have the world's strongest military along with being an all volunteer force. If a situation actually arises that would require a draft we will have a larger pool of recruits to draw from.
Anyway in my eyes requiring women to register for Selective Service is simply another symbol of equality in the United States of America.
duckmalone forfeited this round.
Here's my rebuttal.
Rebuttal: I think that your reasoning to say that it idol to have women be required for the selective service act just for the sake of equality and not so they can actually join (as you say there will be no draft anymore) flawed. Why have anyone join the draft then? So women should only do this as a symbol of equality? Doesn't really make sense. If women just as capable as men want to join the military, then all power to them. I be glad they joined and appreciate their service, but requiring the biologically weaker women to join just for the sake of equality is just, well, we have more important women's rights things to worry about.
Anyway Selective Service is in a way a very cheap insurance cost. At this current day and time it's unlikely a draft will ever come back but things can change. The world can be a very different place in a few decades.
People don't join the draft voluntarily, hence the draft. It's conscription when there isn't enough volunteers to serve in the military. Again the Selective is a very cheap insurance cost, it's like life insurance. We hope it's something that we won't have to use anytime soon but we know it's there to protect our family if god forbid something happens.
Women should register to help promote equality, all combat jobs are now opened to women. However men have proven time over time that the average man is more fit for those combat jobs. The Marine Corps has conducted a study on the gender integration of combat units. It has shown the integrated unit is inferior in nearly every way in comparison to all male units. Our government completely ignored this study and went on to open all combat jobs.
As a result if women want equality they need to be treated as equals. We can't just have one and not have the other (combat jobs and Selective Service.)
"If women just as capable as men want to join the military, then all power to them."- Your statement.
The draft is designed to force individuals to join the military against their will, it's not voluntary. If a draft somehow is needed we will have a larger pool of draftees to pick from. If we only choose to draft men that would be neutering the draft pool by half.
"71% of 14-24 year olds do not qualify for military service currently" (source below.) Requiring women to register for Selective Service will bring the best recruits possible to the military, when a draft is actually needed often times military standards are lowered to draft more draftees. If women are to be drafted as well it will help maintain standards the military sets out.
So let's say you run a hospital, lives depend in how well you can maintain your hospital. Voluntarily employees at the hospital are not enough to help sustain the hospital. Let's say you're allowed to force individuals to work at the hospital in the name of preserving lives. Would you only force males to work for you? Or would you force both genders so you can get the best employees possible. It's not the best analogy but I hope it gets the point across.
So for example in this scenario: military standards are lowered to allow to draft a lower quality pool of draftees. These lowered standards could be forcing criminals to enlist, as you know criminals are generally terrible armed forces personnel. Those criminals can often be a danger to fellow military personnel around them. So if we double the pool of draftees we wouldn't need to resort to drafting criminals yet.
Women may be physically weaker in general but that doesn't make them inferior automatically. The military has a strong emphasis on fitness but fitness isn't the only requirement to being a successful Soldier/Airman/Marine/Sailor etc. It takes a very academically proficient mind to operate nukes, fly planes, manage a submarine etc etc.
Combat jobs have a huge emphasis on fitness, but combat jobs are also a very small percentage of the actual military. Those combat jobs need food, transportation, Intel, supply, security, air support (and it takes a lot of people to help support aircraft), naval support (again a lot of people to support a ship) etc etc.
I think you bring up many compelling arguments that will be difficult to prove false, but il will try and I will also add my own new arguments.
First, again, I think your assumption that a draft will never happen again is to really true. I thin it could, and would happen a the start of a new major war. I think the draft is like life incurance though and it is necccisary to have because we would need it if a major war started and if not enough men that could registired then it would seem logical to have women on gaurd if they are more qualified then 70% of men that are not qualified to be in the military. Of course we would want women that are more qualified then some men to be in the military, thats only logical. There is only a few fundmental problems with you argument though.
According to a Newsweek report, 25% of women in the military are sexualy assulted and 80% have been sexualy harrased in some way. This number is way to high. Unless we figure out a way to keep men in the military from doing this, then honestly combat would be torture to women, putting this along with the hard training they would have to do. Women would make great peole in the military, especialy in places such as hospilats, and other non-combatnat roles, and I could agrue that they would be better at these roles then men, but as long as this goes on, then its tough.
So I think our military would be better with women, but right now I think there is too much gender discrimination that I don't think we are ready to have them in the miitary ourselves. Fighting gender discrimination with discrimination may sound crazy, but right now, I think it is the only path.
The issue with these sexual assault reports is that these reports are very vague. These reports could be a joke that someone could be offended by claiming it's a sexual assault or it could an actual assault.
The military isn't perfect, it's composed of millions and millions of people. There are bound to be a few bad apples here and there but the issue is that one bad apple is over publicized to represent the entire military. We hear all these "military sexual assaults" but why isn't the civilian world's misconduct publicized?
"All in all, the rate of sexual assault in the military doesn"t appear significantly higher than the rate in the broader civilian population " and when you look at college campuses, which, like the military, are full of 17- to 24-year-olds, the military"s sexual assault rates start looking low in comparison. " - Foreignpolicy.com
The military isn't perfect but in comparison to the civilian world there is by far less "sexual assaults."
Sexual assault is not an issue in the military, the military by far is more equal and does not discriminate by gender in comparison to the civilian world. Everyone receives the same pay set by congress, given the opportunity to advance, etc etc.
Your argment is flawed because you are saying that there will be a war that causes women to be in the war and that there will not be enough qualified men nto be in the military, and you also say that there will probably never be a draft again. If the only reason we are enlisting women in the military is bcause "equality" is not a good reason.
I will state my opion again that women who want to suffer through the hell that war is then they can, but making them enlist if there is enough men to do it, along with the gender discrimination, just is not "equality "to them. I doubt there will ever be a war where there is not enough qualified men.
Great argument. I think you changed my view a little, in my opinion you won :)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 42lifeuniverseverything 5 months 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:||7||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Better Conduct goes to Pro because Con forfeited a round then flipped positions in the last round and twisted Pro's words. Con lost spelling based on his argument in round 3. Con lost convincing arguments for many reasons. But the main and only reason pertinent to my decision, was the number of concessions made my Con about what Pro asserted. Pro asserted some things that were important, and Con conceded them. A) Agreed draft is life insurance policy. B) "I think our military would be better with women" total concession of round. Implies that draft expansion is good because it would make the military better. Also "you are saying that there will be a war" Pro never said that. That is misrepresentation. These lost Con arguments. Finally Pro wins sources because Con never cited a single source to counter Pro's 4 cited sources. In conclusion, I believe awarding Pro 7 points is completely justifiable outlined in the reasons above. I VOTE PRO.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate