The Instigator
Lee001
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
Lexus
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Women Should Have the Right to Fight on the Front Lines. **March Tournament**

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
Lee001
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/6/2015 Category: People
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 713 times Debate No: 71235
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

Lee001

Pro

In this debate will be argued that Women should have the right to fight on the frontlines.

Frontline:

a : a military line formed by the most advanced tactical combat units; also :

b : an area of potential or actual conflict or struggle

: the most advanced, responsible, or visible position in a field or activity

Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com...

1st round Acceptance
2nd round Arguments
3rd round Rebuttals and Arguments
4th round Rebuttals and Arguments
5th round Closing Statements.
Lexus

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Lee001

Pro

For many years women have been allowed to fight in comeback. Women were allowed to first fight at the end of WW2, 1917-1918. WW2 was allot more of a gruesome war then wars we have today. Lets state a scripture:Ecclesiastes 3:8"A time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace"It doesn't say "A time to love, a time to hate, a time for MEN to fight in war"Simply, if you love your country and want to protect it, then you should have every right to weather you are a man or a women.I will be arguing my 1st "Women and Equality"Many people want to complain that women don't have the mental and physical capabilities that men do. This is why Military have strict physical and mental test For those who wish to enlist. Only those who past these test are allowed in.A sergeant states: "The military has different physical standards based on age and sex for the Army and Marines. In either service, the standards for both sexes would be the same for those trying to get into the infantry and other combat arms specialties."As you can see, men and women both have the same physical standards that able to get into the miliraty thus, front lines.Trust:There is no difference between the trust of man and women. Its like a man saying "I don't trust that person to have my back because he has red hair" which completely makes no sense what so ever. The aspects of trust between man and women are the same, women are just as capable to save a mans life.
Quick Story:
I was sitting in the cockpit of my AH-1W Super Cobra attack helicopter when my division got a desperate call for help. It was August 2004, and I was a part of the 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit based in Iraq. Insurgents were hitting our troops with mortar rounds. The Marine squad was out of ammunition and couldn't shoot back. They had just fought a long and fierce battle, supply reinforcements couldn't reach them and they didn't even have any green smoke to mark their position for us. They needed assistance immediately took out the enemy target with the last remaining missile on our aircraft. Several months later, I was talking to a Marine. When he found out I flew Cobras, he started to recount an experience he had in Iraq in which a Cobra shot a missile and saved his squad. Turned out, it was the same mission; the missile came from my aircraft. He stared at me and said, "Ma'am, you saved my life." Did it matter that the one who fired that missile was a woman, or that she was black and gay? Absolutely not! - Vernice Armour who served in Iraq.

He then goes on to state :
"Women have already proven we can handle ourselves on the front lines. And in recent times, even with the ban on women in combat in place, women have been POWs. The Lioness Program, the Marine Corps all-female search team, is an example of why we can't accomplish our front line missions without women. The reality of modern warfare is that there are no front lines.
Honestly, I am offended by how many times I hear "women in combat" and "lowering standards" used in the same sentence. True, the average man is physically stronger than the average woman. Standards should not be lowered and women don't want them to be. No one should be in a job where he or she doesn't meet the standards -- not every man, for example is fit to be a Navy SEAL."

As you can see, women are just as capable for saving a life then a man. It doesn't matter if your black, white, purple, red hair or gay. It simply doesn't matter.Vernice Armour then goes on to state :Women have already proven we can handle ourselves on the front lines. And in recent times, even with the ban on women in combat in place, women have been POWs. The Lioness Program, the Marine Corps all-female search team, is an example of why we can't accomplish our front line missions without women. The reality of modern warfare is that there are no front lines.So, what is the major malfunction that makes it bad for women to fight upon the front lines? They are human, just like the rest of the men who fight on the front lines.
Sources:
Lexus

Con

I thank my opponent for typing a quick and well thought out response. As per the debate format, this round will be arguments.
Now, before I begin, I find that it is necessary to bring up the idea that a right is "an entitlement to something [that can be invoked at any time that is necessary and applicable]" [1]. This means that giving a woman the "right to fight on front line [combat]" would mean that she can invoke this right of hers and go join front line combat... at any time that is applicable. I think that this is important to note as I move forward with my arguments.

Contention 1. Sexual assault. If we allow women to engage in front line combat, we are opening the ability for the enemy
to capture them and commit sexual assault on them, as opposed to just killing them. Most of the nations within the world are misogynistic in practice, which means that they do not appreciate women, and would especially not appreciate them fighting against the greater good of [insert enemy country to the US here]. Enemy soldiers would take women from the front lines and try to have power of them by sexual assault, which is the major reason that sexual assault exists, not for sexual pleasure [2]. The right of a woman to not be assaulted while fighting enemy combatants outweighs the benefits of a right to join front line combat at any time (if there possibly could be any).
Contention 2. Problems with the "right" to join front line combat. As I said in my little introduction to my arguments, a right may be invoked at any time and without any prior training for this right to occur. I have the right to not be illegally searched and seized, and I invoke that right automatically, without having to think about it. But I also have the right to vote, which I have to invoke voluntarily in order for my right to be processed. Giving women to right to join front line combat means that they can invoke this right whenever we are in a conflict, without training, without previous experience, and without real thought. By allowing women to join front line combat, we are forcing our armed forces to have a burden on them with unexperienced fighters that cannot do their job in the way that it was intended. Because this debate is about the RIGHT of a woman to join front line combat and I have proven that they should not have this right, I win this point and move onto my next one.
Contention 3. Dismissal of popular belief. This is not so much as a contention, just something that I really want to say. A lot of people that are proponents of allowing women in front line combat often say that opponents to it are "misogynistic" and "women hating" (those are synonyms..). However, I think that allowing a women to be free from sexual assault and away from enemy torment is more women-loving than allowing women to be raped viciously by enemy combatants and allowing them to die in a way that we cannot even imagine.
I also want to bring up how a lot of proponents say that this is the moral equivalent of not allowing gay people/black people/whatever people in the military due to bigotry or hatred toward these groups of people, but this is really not the case. There is a massive difference between women and a black man/gay man/purple man in the military: if a woman was allowed in front line combat, she would suffer by friendly forces more than they would. I am not going to say that she will not suffer more than the men before her that die in the name of their country, because men and women would both die by enemy forces. However she will be tormented by people on the same side as her, which is the main factor. (sorry for wording -- english is not my first language)


[1]: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
[2]: http://www.theguardian.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Lee001

Pro

Con states: "an entitlement to something [that can be invoked at any time that is necessary and applicable]" [1]. This means that giving a woman the "right to fight on front line [combat]" would mean that she can invoke this right of hers and go join front line combat... at any time that is applicable. I think that this is important to note as I move forward with my arguments."
This basically is saying that a women has the right to fight upon the front lines if she wishes to, because she has the right, nothing should be able to stop her from wanting to serve her country.
Rebuttal #1
Con brings up sexual assault, she is correct, women do get raped often and get taken advantage of for being the "women". Yet any women knowing the consequences of joining the military, they know they could possible be taken advantage of and might be sexual assaulted. This is why you consider the possible outcomes of doing something you wish. Ultimately if the women knows the dangers and side effects of joining its ultimately her decision. She knows the consequences but she docent care, she'd still want to fight for her country. A former women solider explains how she was sexually assaulted in the military and states that :
"We have quite a few of our men and women that are being raped and sexually harassed during the recruitment process." As you can see, it's not just women who get sexually assaulted and raped but its also men.
Rebuttal #2
Con then goes on to state : "Giving women to right to join front line combat means that they can invoke this right whenever we are in a conflict, without training, without previous experience, and without real thought. By allowing women to join front line combat, we are forcing our armed forces to have a burden on them with inexperienced fighters that cannot do their job in the way that it was intended"
You are correct, women have the right to chose what they wish, as it's their right to chose what they wish. So women SHOULD be allowed to join if they wish, they don't need to invoke the right, because they do have the right to chose.
"Women in the military have a history that extends over 3,000 years into the past, throughout a large number of cultures and nations. Women have played many roles in the military, from ancient warrior women, to the women currently serving in conflicts, even though the vast majority of all combatants have been men in every culture.

Even though women serving in the military has often been controversial, relatively few women in history have fought alongside men. In the American Civil War, there were a few women who cross-dressed as men in order to fight. Fighting on the battlefront in disguise was not the only way women involved themselves in war. Some also served as nurses and aides."

As you can see, from a long time ago women were not forced to join the military yet they wanted to join, because they wanted to. They had the right to chose to go into the military or to not to go into. They weren't forced.

Rebuttal #3
My opponent then goes on to claim that women would be tormented by the men and would still be sexually harassed and raped.
Women aren't the only ones who get molested but men as well, just like I stated in my first rebuttal.
"As a culture, we’ve somewhat moved past the idea that a female wanted this trauma to occur, but we haven’t moved past that for male survivors,” said Brian Lewis, a rape survivor who served in the Navy. “In a lot of areas of the military, men are still viewed as having wanted it or of being homosexual. That’s not correct at all. It’s a crime of power and control." - Former Navy Petty Officer Third Class Brian Lewis. So again we see its not only women that get raped and sexually assaulted but men to as well, you cannot escape this problem. for if you chose to join the military, you also are going in knowing that major consequences and dangers set aside from fighting.
Argument #2 BENEFITS

"Regardless of arguments about gender equality, physical ability or mental preparedness, I think this is a step in the right direction. Women have been fighting on increasingly nonlinear battlefields with no front lines for years, and this decision will allow them to be fully and officially recognized for their contributions.

Most important, it will also allow them to receive the proper training for the types of combat situations they already “unofficially” find themselves a part of. I thank Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta for this decision, and I especially thank the women of our armed forces for their service to our nation."

Some may say the battle field is no place for a women. But some beg to differ. Women joining in the military has major benefits such as learning proper fighting skill and combat skills.

The Multiple Benefits:

1) Ability vs Gender. As long as an applicant is qualified for a position, one’s gender is arbitrary. It is easy to recruit and deploy women who are in better shape than many men sent into combat.


2) Military Readiness. Allowing a mixed gender force keeps the military strong. The all-volunteer forces are severely troubled by falling retention and recruitment rates. Widening the applicant pool for all jobs guarantees more willing recruits. Women, who choose to become active combat soldiers, are unlikely to shirk their duty by becoming pregnant after a call-up as these women have willingly joined the army.


3)Modern warfare and public support. In the modern world of combat (Afghanistan, Iraq), all women serving in the military are exposed to “front-line risks”. Support for women serving in the armed forces has not wavered as warfare has changed, a clear sign that the necessity of women serving in combat is recognized.
So why not let these women join the frontlines if they wish?
There are many benefits for joining, and you can learn allot of specialized skills.
Back to pro!
Sources:
Lexus

Con

"For many years women have been allowed to fight in comeback"
From my research, this is not true. Only women in the Soviet Union were allowed to fight in WWII (AKA the worst human catastrophe in all of history) [1]. But how is this an argument for letting women have the right to join the military at any time? This reasoning and argument is the equivalent of saying "WWII was good because it happened". Um, wot?

"WW2 was allot more of a gruesome war then wars we have today"
I agree thousands of times. WWII was the worst thing that happened to human civilization in all of its history thus far. But what is the necessity of having women in combat, if we do not have gruesome wars anymore? What is the necessity of having a woman fight alongside a man, when the "gruesomeness" is much lower than a time that women were not allowed to fight in the US? Your "point" is rendered invalid.

"Lets state a scripture"
Let's try to keep this topic less about religion and more about the ethics of letting women in the military.

"Simply, if you love your country and want to protect it, then you should have every right to weather you are a man or a women"
Not if you are going to be terrorised by domestic forces via sexual assault.

"Many people want to complain that women don't have the mental and physical capabilities that men do"
I don't. I'm not arguing that they don't have the same capabilities. I agree, men and women are equal in terms of ways they can do things, both mentally and physically. You are making a logical fallacy by saying that if you agree that women and men are basically equivalent in terms of mental stature and physical stature, then you must agree that they can serve alongside one another in front line combat.

"As you can see, women are just as capable for saving a life then a man."
I 100% agree. But this doesn't further your case at all... this just says that women and men are basic equals. Your point is invalid.

"The reality of modern warfare is that there are no front lines"
Oh, okay. Then how can we give women the right to fight on the front lines if they don't have front lines? You are basically conceding to the fact that women should not have the right to fight on the front lines because the front lines do not exist.


Sorry that this was a shorter round, but because you used a logical fallacy as most of your case, I only have to prove that the assertion is false and that your points are invalid.

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
Lee001

Pro

I have rebutted every single one of your point's and made my own arguments. Yet in this round your just taking portions and sentences of my argument and just implying your own personal thoughts into them. I really don't see any way of arguing in this round because you really didn't give me an argument to rebut against. So the point's that you implied your personal opinion on I will clarify more in this round I guess.

"WW2 was allot more of a gruesome war then wars we have today"
Meaning women have fought along time ago, allot of them survived. Also sexism was very big back then, but yet they were allowed to fight. So what has changed now?

"Lets state a scripture"
I only used 1 or 2 scriptures. Nothing really big nothing that controls this whole argument.

"Simply, if you love your country and want to protect it, then you should have every right to weather you are a man or a women"
Like I have said MULTIPLE times, you consider the consequences before doing something major like enlisting, yet you do it anyways because you love your country.

"Many people want to complain that women don't have the mental and physical capabilities that men do"
Men and Women are help up to the same standard when It comes to physical ability, they are all tested the same.

"As you can see, women are just as capable for saving a life then a man."
Like I've said.....again...it doesn't matter what your orientation is or color is, a women is just as capable as a man is in fighting in a war.

"The reality of modern warfare is that there are no front lines"
Meaning that all wars are dangerous, not just the front lines.

Back to con!
Lexus

Con

Lexus forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Lee001

Pro

Well, I'm sad to see my opponent FF. I feel I justified my point's well. Vote Pro:)
Lexus

Con

sorry I lost all interest in even thinking about this.
vote pro for at least conduct.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 1 year ago
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Lee001LexusTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to PRO for the forfeit. I think arguments are as clear-cut a PRO win as I've ever seen. PRO's entire case remain unchallenged, including the multiplicity of benefits she cited in favor of women on the front lines, including military readiness. Further, CON concedes to the physical and mental equality of women, bolstering PRO's points on the arbitrary exclusion of any particular group. Further, the entirety of CON's case falls apart: he cites a definition of "rights," but goes on to fundamentally misunderstand, as PRO notes, that contextually "rights" is referring to the capacity to serve should a woman be selected. This bolsters PRO's points on the maintenance of rigorous standards. Then CON goes on to strawman PRO's remarks with respect to the demarcation between front lines and other roles--in the process dismissing the fact that past female involvement constitutes similar risks as would serving on the front lines. Since only PRO's arguments remain standing, she wins.