The Instigator
RC-9282
Pro (for)
Tied
2 Points
The Contender
Capitalistslave
Con (against)
Tied
2 Points

Women Should not be Considered for Front Line Combat Roles, and Additionally Excluded From the Draft

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 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/3/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 523 times Debate No: 100537
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

RC-9282

Pro

Open challenge to debate the above topic. I will be taking the pro stance, opponent will be delegated as con.

Rules are as follows:
- Four rounds
- 72 Hours
- 10k Characters
- One week voting period
- Comments are allowed
- No trolling
- No profanity
- If the above two are broken, forfeit is forced

FIRST ROUND ACCEPTANCE ONLY
Capitalistslave

Con

I accept, though I personally think the draft shouldn't apply to anyone. But, I suppose while we have it, I would support women being included in it first, and then we later get rid of the draft. I suppose that's a completely different topic though. Just thought I might clarify my position, and that you are okay with me having that position.
Debate Round No. 1
RC-9282

Pro

One of the trending ideas of the modern age is the notion of absolute equality between genders, which is a falsehood. Granted in modern society we have equity in opportunity, we need to accept that men are better fit to function in some ways than women, and vice versa. In particular, biology has granted men a sturdier frame and and are privy to nearly 40 percent more muscle mass in the upper body than women, with 33 percent in the lower muscular structure. This in total is nearly a 50 percent advantage.

The job in combat is always to achieve victory at the lowest casualty rate, essentially the highest efficiency. Under this pretense, why do we opt to conform to social ideas in a war zone over simple biology? Not only this, men are subject to exponentially larger amounts of testosterone, which stimulates muscle growth and adrenaline production. Men are even subject to a larger skeletal system on average. Not only this, but in the form of maturation, males are tailored for a longer period of time into physical specimens, while women are prepared for childbirth. This alone is indicative of the very different roles each gender plays. Men are naturally the aggressors, and in the words of Ret General James T. Mattis, a highly respected four star general from the Marine Corps, our focus should be directed at making the "most lethal" fighting force possible. In this case men are the more lethal subject, and this is why we have fought in all major conflicts as the majority for thousands of years.

Speaking of the Marines, they have been forced to drop their training standards repeatedly in order to generate an acceptable amount of women who pass. Mattis also cited this is his confirmation hearings.

Women are also put at a disadvantage given their more rigorous practical hygiene. This is a added cost to the military to supply, and an unacceptably one, from tax dollars.

On a more ideological note, there are infinite more ways to torture a captured female soldier than there are a male. I also point to professional fighting leagues l, where trans men are transitioning into female divisions l, and destroying the competition. Anything is possible in war, and the majority of the time a man will come out on top in hand to hand combat
Capitalistslave

Con

I concur with generally what my opponent has said, that women typically tend to be built biologically weaker for upper-body strength and such. However, does this justify preventing all women from being able to serve? I would say no. There are above-average women who could be as strong or stronger than men. There are women who can work well in combat. One such woman is Leigh Ann Hester, who received a silver star for her bravery when her squad was being ambushed in Iraq. [1]

Now, I'm not sure if the Marines really has dropped their training standards in order to accomodate women, but if they have, this is a problem. However, the solution is not to bar women from the front lines. Why not keep the original standards and let women who happen to meet them in the military? Is there anything wrong with the original standards?

If a woman who meets the original standards wants to fight in the front line, then why not?

Additionally, for the draft, it could still keep the standards. Only women who meet the standards would be drafted.

Now, if we did keep high standards for the military, we would probably see fewer women in the military, because as my opponent said which I am not challenging, women are not built like men are when it comes to developing muscle, having as big of a frame, etc. But, the thing is, not every woman is the typical woman. There are extraordinary women like Leigh Ann Hester who are formidable soldiers. Why should they be denied being allowed in front line combat roles?



Sources:
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
RC-9282

Pro

Thanks for a timely response.

First and foremost I turn back to Marine Corps standards, along with all our armed forces. The original standards were already lower in many physical categories for women before they were dropped, due to a nearly 0 sum pass rate. This in my opinion is unacceptable. While I do not question a woman's conviction to serve, I do question their capacity to do so.

Front line combat is one of the most physically intense experiences and individual can endure, and the preparedness determines their ability to survive. Opting to send a weaker unit into combat is not only endangering that unit, but the other forces that work with it. This is where we must set aside social adherence's for the sake of preserving a effective fighting force. The fact is that women are the least effective unit to put into a combat role. Even those who did manage to pass the former standards would be at a disadvantage still. You have also failed to address the basic concept of a woman needing more rigorous hygienic support in order to maintain full function. This alone makes them a liability compared to their male counterpart, as these supplies may not be readily available on the front.

Also, their are two duties in combat. One, to your country, and two, to your fellow soldiers. In the event of letting them down, you may also get them killed, or yourself, putting them in danger. My opponent has acknowledged that women are physically inferior to a male specimen, so I propose this: if you create a joint unit of male and females, the males will inevitably be forced to pick up slack where the female is not as capable. This can range from transporting equipment to simple physical labor. These added responsibilities may deduct from their fighting capacity, and in turn raise the likelihood of a casualty. Then you might propose all male units and all female units. The question then is, why not only have male units, as they are more capable. This is inevitably the conclusion I and many other members of our fighting forces, and even women have concluded. Women and men have their respective roles, and front line combat is a male responsibility. We are better suited and better trained to do so. Women can be involved in the fighting forces, outside these roles.

Now addressing the very rare percentile of women who can compete with a male counterpart, all I have to say is this. The aspect of hygiene still applies, and while in this case it would be much cheaper to supply these few women, why not replace them with a perfectly suitable male unit who does not come at this added expense?
Capitalistslave

Con

I would like to point out that my opponent is not providing any sources for a lot of these claims, this should be taken into account when voting. I don't personally know the standards of the military or what they were originally. I can't confirm that what pro is saying how the original standards for women were lower than that for men is true. I'm not even sure where to begin looking for that to be honest, I can easily find the current standards, but I can't seem to find the original standards, from say, decades ago, or when the first time we allowed women to serve in the front lines. My opponent's argument, is thus, a little weaker because they are not providing sources for this information and I am unable to confirm it myself with my own research.

Regardless, if we were to assume that the original standards were different for men and women, I would argue we should have the standards be the same for men and women and have them high, because we need good quality soldiers. Once more, I ask, why if a woman were to meet high standards that are the same that a man has to meet, why they should not be allowed to serve?

Now, it seems my opponent as mostly ignored my example of Leigh Ann Hester and how well she responded in a serious situation, and how there are other women like her in the military(one only needs to look up "Women who have received silver stars in the military" to see that there are more women like her). I would like to ask my opponent again, why should women like Leigh Ann Hester be denied the front lines?

My opponent has mostly ignored the point I brought up with women who meet the standards, all they said was this:
"Now addressing the very rare percentile of women who can compete with a male counterpart, all I have to say is this. The aspect of hygiene still applies, and while in this case it would be much cheaper to supply these few women, why not replace them with a perfectly suitable male unit who does not come at this added expense?"

They seem to be referring to something they said previously about hygiene, to which I would reply: the military could just provide basic things both genders need. For the most part, women don't need specialized women's hygiene products to still be hygenically clean. My girlfriend, for example, uses a lot of male products, such as male deodorant and other things. She is perfectly fine with that. The only reason many women are not okay with that is probably because they want specific smells and softer skin. These things are not necessary, and the military could easily make the decision to provide the same things for both women and men. It's not like women absolutely need their specialized hygiene products. While they may complain about it, they can make due with the same stuff men do, like my girlfriend does.

Alternatively, I would say that the military could just not provide any of these products for anyone, and just raise the compensation they give to their soldiers so that they can buy these things themselves. That's another solution.
Debate Round No. 3
RC-9282

Pro

I apologize for the lack for sources, expect a lengthy list at the end of this argument.

First I call out this questionable statement, quote "They seem to be referring to something they said previously about hygiene, to which I would reply: the military could just provide basic things both genders need. For the most part, women don't need specialized women's hygiene products to still be hygienically clean". I find I failed to clarify, but in my first argument I did. Would you not consider tampons, among other products to be not gender specific? You seem to have this misconception about front line combat. Sure, perhaps the military can supply these amenities, but in the heat of combat how do you get these to them in a combat zone? Men can easily go weeks (forever actually) without these extra necessities for a woman, however she cannot. These supplies add a whole new cost and logistic issue that can easily be avoided. Our troops do not have just unfettered access to these things. Personally from my cousin, who served on a small base in the kandahar province, even the basic things such as shampoo and soap could take weeks to make it in.

Menstruation Is also a hormonal imbalance, and can effect a woman's capacity to fight. Again, a liability.

I will not go over the physical differences that renders the male on average superior.

And as to your comment regarding training standards, quote "Regardless, if we were to assume that the original standards were different for men and women, I would argue we should have the standards be the same for men and women and have them high, because we need good quality soldiers. Once more, I ask, why if a woman were to meet high standards that are the same that a man has to meet, why they should not be allowed to serve?" I think you failed to catch my drift. The standards were already lower in order to get women to pass. Even at these lower standards women were failing to pass, so they were lowered again.

And I did not ignore Leigh Ann Hester, she fit into my argument about the few who can compete with male counterparts. While she is a hero, these few do not justify a complete degradation of our standards in order to generate them.

So when you ask me why, if women meet these standards, should they not be allowed to serve, my answer is they cannot, and that is the reason the standards have been lowered altogether.

You wanted evidence, so I give it to you. As of June 22 2016, the female drop out rate in combat tests was an astronomical 85 percent to the male 2.5 percent.

https://www.google.com...

This also comes directly after April 19 2015, where no females managed to pass the infantry officer corps.

http://m.washingtontimes.com...

I saved myself the luxury of summarizing these, I think if you browsed through them you would see the drastic difference in training standards.

corps-fitness-requirements/usmc-pft-charts

fitness-requirements/marine-corps-basic-training

Mind you these current standards generate around a 85 percent fail rate in women. Only a 2.5 percent in men.

The differences are even more drastic in the Army.

fitness-requirements/army-basic-training-pft

My opponent also failed completely to address the notion that combat is not just about serving ones country, but about those around you. As a physically unsuited specimen to combat, women pose a liability. And in combat liabilities turn into casualties.

My entire family has dedicated themselves to the service of this country, and I plan to do so as well via a military academy. But they all share the same view. My dad, brother, and cousin have all served as infantry in the recent wars, such as the gulf and Afghanistan, and both support this. During drills to simulate fireman's carry, or a drag of a wounded combatant, all women they have been around have found it substantially harder to do so, and it makes them uneasy. They honestly don't trust the ability of a woman to do so. Its not to say they do not respect them for their commitment, its to say they see the rules of biology. I guarantee you the majority of combat veterans share the same opinion. Even my mother and aunt agree, both coming from military backgrounds.
Capitalistslave

Con

Ah, true, I suppose there are a few other things women do need. I don't know why I didn't think of that in the earlier round. I don't see how it would be too big of an issue however. The woman would just have to put up with a period potentially going on while in combat. This is something that the woman likely would think about before entering the military and perhaps can solve the issue herself. There are other solutions, for example, birth control pills usually prevent a period from occuring. They wouldn't need anything else beyond that, and they could just take that pill while they are not in combat.


And as for the standards again, I don't think every single woman who tried to enter the military didn't meet the original high standards, which as you stated, the drop out rate was 85%, and not 100%. While the drop out rate is at 85%, why not allow the 15% to be in the military? I don't think the hygienic issues are big enough reasons to prevent them from entering the military, and I offered a way in which the woman can choose to solve the issue.


Regarding that women would be a liability, I don't think they would be if we kept the standards high. The very few women who are the best of the best women, the 15% mind you, would probably not be a liability, especially if they were able to handle all of the hygienic issues you mentioned. It would probably be a good idea for them to be on a birth control pill that blocks menstruation. I don't see why any women who does that, and who meets the original standards for the military, can't be in the military. They would not be a liability. I again bring up my previous example: was Leigh Ann Hester a liability to the military?

Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by TheDragon5 1 year ago
TheDragon5
This will be an interesting debate!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by CivilianName295 1 year ago
CivilianName295
RC-9282CapitalistslaveTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:22 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm still neutral as far as my opinions are on the subject but pro has better conduct and better grammar, however con had more reliable sources