The Instigator
Jlicifer
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
FieryNyan
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points

Woman Should Get Drafted

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 5 votes the winner is...
FieryNyan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/25/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 581 times Debate No: 88763
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (8)
Votes (5)

 

Jlicifer

Con

Women are better suited for non combat roles. Or at the very least they should have to pass the same tests that men pass to be in combat roles.
FieryNyan

Pro

From the title, one would assume that your stand is woman should NOT get drafted, at all. Well, I'd like to start by showing how my country work regarding this issue. In my country, at the age of 18, everyone, regardless of race or gender, will randomly be selected for army training. The boys would be trained, as they are in every country. How about the girls? They DO get drafted. Some of them would end up in the platoon too (Keep in mind that the male and female platoon is separated for obvious reasons).

However, how about the other girls? You need to know that during wartime, the important stuff that happen isn't the war; it's the data transfer, data gathering, and planning. That's where the other girls come in. This involves a lot of work, from secretary duties to planning. I believe that girls should be drafted too, for this very reason. True, maybe some girls might not reach the physical capacity of a male, but there are many more available job. Snipers, computations, secretarial, and even planning. These jobs don't work on their own, you know.

Also, when you said "Or at the very least they should have to pass the same tests that men pass to be in combat roles", it doesn't help your case at all, as you're against women being drafted. If such test is available, wouldn't that mean girls can/will get drafted?
Debate Round No. 1
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
@Ragnar

My apologies, it was an accident.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
My apologies, the decision to remove this vote was, indeed, in error.
Posted by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
My vote is back in place (as much as I don't think this debate or any vote on it is meaningful). If anyone (anyone at all really, but hopefully whomever found it so lacking) wants to discuss some problem they perceive with my vote, I'm here.
Posted by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
@tejretics
Nice job with the mockery of old strategic voting, and the type of BS counter votes that sometimes came with it. Giving extra points to the same side someone without a RFD voted for, to "counter" them... brilliant.

"Ugh, this debate. Both sides have cases built on bare assertions and under-explained arguments. The BOP is shared, and it seems ~ on first sight ~ that neither side is fulfilling their BOP. But I think Pro wins on account of Con's concession. Yes, Con did implicitly concede in R1: "They should be required to pass the same tests as men." Which is equivalent to conceding that drafting women into the military is fine. Pro also shows that physical capacity doesn't really matter since women can also work in non-combat roles in the military. Once more, Con has another concession: "Women are better suited for non combat roles." I think all this allows a clear victory for Pro. Edit: Sources + S/G to counter dsjpk5's vote which doesn't have rationale."
Posted by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
My disagreement with the decision is threefold, and a PM is en route to sort it out.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Ragnar// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments), 1 point to Con (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Con's own opening case is firmly in favor of the resolution (as pro pointed out), well accidental, I will credit this as a concession instead of just failure. Anyway the only real thing for consideration is pro's case that women are useful in the military, as there is not even a consent question on military service put forward, pro's case has met minimal BoP and as unchallenged wins.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter doesn't explain conduct.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: queencoop// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision:

[*Reason for non-removal*] The debate does not require RFDs, and therefore RFDs (or lack thereof) are not moderated.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: dsjpk5// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision:

[*Reason for non-removal*] The debate does not require RFDs, and therefore RFDs (or lack thereof) are not moderated.
************************************************************************
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
JliciferFieryNyanTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Ugh, this debate. Both sides have cases built on bare assertions and under-explained arguments. The BOP is shared, and it seems ~ on first sight ~ that neither side is fulfilling their BOP. But I think Pro wins on account of Con's concession. Yes, Con did implicitly concede in R1: "They should be required to pass the same tests as men." Which is equivalent to conceding that drafting women into the military is fine. Pro also shows that physical capacity doesn't really matter since women can also work in non-combat roles in the military. Once more, Con has another concession: "Women are better suited for non combat roles." I think all this allows a clear victory for Pro. Edit: Sources + S/G to counter dsjpk5's vote which doesn't have rationale.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
JliciferFieryNyanTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's own opening case is firmly in favor of the resolution (as pro pointed out), while accidental, I will credit this as a concession (conduct) instead of just failure. Anyway the only real thing for consideration is pro's case that women are useful in the military, as there is not even a consent question on military service put forward, pro's case has met minimal BoP and as unchallenged wins.
Vote Placed by Hayd 1 year ago
Hayd
JliciferFieryNyanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Queencop countervote
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
JliciferFieryNyanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by queencoop 1 year ago
queencoop
JliciferFieryNyanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03