The Instigator
sengejuri
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
FaustianJustice
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

Women in Combat Arms

Do you like this debate?NoYes+21
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 4 votes the winner is...
sengejuri
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 3/17/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 20,208 times Debate No: 88303
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (81)
Votes (4)

 

sengejuri

Pro

** Closed Debate - comment if you wish to accept **

Full Resolution: Women should be allowed into combat arms if they meet all standards.

Definitions:

Combat Arms: All branches of the US Military previously closed to females, including Infantry, Armor, and Special Forces.

Standards: All performance standards currently set for combat arms jobs, including physical fitness scores, body composition, etc...

**Full disclosure, I am very familiar with the military and its gender integration policies, so please don't accept unless you're prepared to offer a strong (yet civil) argument.

Please respond with a comment explaining why I should pick you.

Round 1: Acceptance only
Round 2: Opening arguments (no rebuttals)
Round 3: Rebuttals/Counter arguments
Round 4: Rebuttals and conclusion (no new arguments)
FaustianJustice

Con

I accept this debate, and look forward to the discussion.
Debate Round No. 1
sengejuri

Pro

Thanks for accepting, hoping for a good debate.

== Argument ==

1. Equal standards - There is no question that the average female is physically weaker than the average male. The previous policy of gender exclusion was made based on this premise. But what are we to make of above average females? If a woman with exceptional athletic ability and toughness can meet and even exceed the standards currently set for male troops, on what basis should she be denied the job? For example, the current physical standard to be a US Army Ranger involves completing 49 pushups, 59 situps, 6 pullups, and running 5 miles in under 40 minutes. Another US Infantry standard is carrying a 35 pound pack in full combat gear for 12 miles in under 3 hours. There are women who have completed and even exceeded these standards. Notably, 3 women to date have passed the US Army Ranger School, by all accounts outperforming many of their male peers. If these standards, which are currently deemed "good enough" to qualify a man for combat, are not changed, and women prove they can meet those standards (they already have), then it qualifies as discrimination to exclude those women solely for their chromosomes. Bottom line - if women meet the same standard as men, there is no justification for denying them the job.

2. Women already have proven competence in combat - A big driver in this debate was the fact that women have already been exposed to combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, so it made no sense to officially continue excluding them. There are numerous accounts of women performing with courage and valor under fire. Take, for instance, SPC Monica Brown, who was awarded the Silver Star for running through enemy small arms and mortar fire to protect and treat wounded infantrymen [1]. Or SGT Leigh Hester, also awarded the Silver Star, who personally led an assault to clear enemy positions during an ambush in Iraq resulting in 27 enemy KIA [2]. I challenge Con to justify why these Silver Star winners should be excluded from serving in combat, given that they already have proven courageous and competent under fire.

3. Other countries integrate with no problems - many modern armies are already gender integrated, including Canada, Israel, Germany, Australia, and Norway. It seems there are very few, if any, additional problems as a result of their gender integrated ranks, because if there was a noticeable difference in military performance they would cease the policy. In fact, according to National Geographic, "A study on the integration of female combatants in the IDF [Israeli Defense Force] between 2002 and 2005 found that women often exhibit 'superior skills' in discipline, motivation, and shooting abilities, yet still face prejudicial treatment stemming from 'a perceived threat to the historical male combat identity.' [3]. If other modern armies (many of them NATO members) have integrated with success on the basis of equal standards, then there is no reason why the United States should be a special exception.

[1] http://www.nbcnews.com...
[2] http://www.homeofheroes.com...
[3] http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
FaustianJustice

Con

Thank you pro.



Before we move any further, I feel it is important to recognize one immutable fact: men and women are different. This ifference though stems from biology, and diminishes nothing about individual achievement. Secondly, that biology predisposes itself to gender roles. Notice I am not stating that a gender must or should engage in something, only that gender is immutable with regards to physiological process and certain capability.



Introduction-

So, as we begin, lets look at what we want out of combatants: lethality. Aggression. Strength. It makes perfect sense as to why historically combat (and the armed forces in general) was exclusively a male endeavour. On average, males were stronger, more aggressive, etc. As time wore on, women did find their way into the military, though those roles
stemmed around logisitics and support, and very infrequently were front line roles unless borne of dire necessity. Now, in the modern military, specialized troops have been developed in order to provide very specific roles. While today's wars might have strayed from the drawn lines and heavy lifting of days gone by, the requirements of what we want in a solider hasn't.



The Obvious-


The answer relates back to biology. Women can get pregnant. Before this gets dismissed as a sexist argument out of hand,lets explore it for just a moment. Is pregnancy always planned? Does it entail an ever increasing degree of complication? Can it diminish the desired traits of a soldier? And lastly: can a male get pregnant? The answer to all of these are rather plain. To lend credence to this prong, it should be noted that in the armed forces, unplanned pregnancies was estimated to be at rates 50% higher than that of the civilian population. (1) This article further highlights the immediate problems of females and males being deployed regarding privacy, however that falls outside the immediate scope of this particular argument.



The Dynamic-


Currently, the number of enlisted members aged 18-25 is roughly 43%, predominantly male. (2) Speaking generally, this is also a male's sexual prime. In keeping the idea of assault and out right rape out of the picture, the male/female dynamic at the height of one's sexual peak has obvious implications. Females are an immediate distraction to males, sexually. Combat units are forged to hedge out every type of diversion, but in the name of equality this particular diversion is being inserted into the combat unit. If the goal is for lethality, why do anything to interrupt that? In this particular instance is where the privacy issue previously mentioned comes into play. To eliminate the distraction, the privacy is needed as it thwarts the potential for diversion, however active combats might not have such an ability for privacy and now we have unneeded variables chipping away at the resolve of the unit.




Passed the Bar, but…-

If the female soldiers in question get injured more frequently, or fail to consistently perform, so what if they passed a standard? In their continued quest for lethality, the armed forces conduct tests and studies to improve the qualities they seek, and in doing so found that units with mixed genders did not perform as well as units comprised of all men. (3) Sure, the standards were passed, but much like a student cramming for a test whom doesn’t retain the knowledge, does passing the standard once really mean the candidate is appropriate? The study conducted leans to the conclusion that the effectiveness of the unit is harmed compared to other units of a homogenous gender. The answer is pretty clear: the lethality of the unit decreased.



Cautionary Tale-

Standardised tests are excellent. They make a hard bar to clear, and in the instance of the armed forces, make for definitive ways in which to weed out troopers that would be unqualified for specific roles. Like many standards, though, the are subject to “Creep”: that woeful influence of society to lower the bar so as to include more people. We have seen this happen through many facets of society, the moist poignant is education. The military is no different. Under the auspices of ‘equality’, rigorous standards could very well be eased. As it stands, the Marines are under scrutiny. Here is a smidge of gloom and doom:

Elaine Donnelly, who directs the Center for Military Readiness and has issued papers arguing against women in direct land
combat, said all standards for special operations, Army infantry and the Marines are “very much in jeopardy.”

“Over time, and it wouldn’t be long, the ‘Dempsey rule’ would apply, meaning, ‘If it’s too hard for women, it’s probably too
hard,’” she said. (4)


Conclusion-


The desired goal of the armed forces is to have a combat lethal unit of soldiers. This is accomplished through eliminating potential complications, ensuring the reliable physical ability of a unit, and eliminating distractions. The addition of females to combat units runs contrary to all of the above, as such, their role should not be that of front line combat.



1) http://www.huffingtonpost.com...



2)
http://download.militaryonesource.mil...;

3) https://www.washingtonpost.com...

4) http://www.washingtontimes.com...

In my quest for various media of edu-tainment, I stumbled across one “Lindybeige” on Youtube. In addition to being incredibly entertaining, “Mr. Beige” is also a well-read individual of various disciplines from martial arts to history. I would highly recommend hitting up this video: https://www.youtube.com...;should you have the time, and are interested in a historical to modern take on the sexes.

Debate Round No. 2
sengejuri

Pro

== Rebuttal ==

I will organize my rebuttal by responding to the titles of each section in Con's argument.

"Introduction" - Here, Con highlights that men and women are biologically different. Con says "On average, males were stronger, more aggressive, etc..." I agree, and I said as much in my opening argument. But so what? I am not advocating that the average woman off the street go into combat arms, I am talking about above average women like SGT Leigh Hester or CPT Kristen Griest (first female Ranger graduate). These women proved they were just as physically tough and strong as their male peers. Once again, why should the exceptional women who CAN meet and exceed male standards be excluded from serving in roles for which they qualify? Con seems to imply that women are not as aggressive or lethal as males, but fails to explain why. I wonder if Con would be willing to explain why SGT Hester was not aggressive enough during the ambush in Iraq?

"The Obvious" - Con says that women should be excluded because they can get pregnant. So, in a sense, Con is arguing that because something bad MIGHT happen within a group, that group should therefore be excluded outright. But the military does not adopt such a policy for virtually any other behavior. For example, far more military men (32.2%) abuse alcohol than military women (8.1%) [1]. This obviously makes military men more likely than women to commit alcohol related offenses such as DUIs and disorderly conduct. Would these risks therefore justify excluding men from combat service? Of course not. Instead, we hold individuals accountable for individual behavior. If you get a DUI, you are kicked out of the Army, and that's the end of it. The same can be applied to female pregnancies in the military. And, lest Con argue that it's different because males cannot possibly get pregnant, then let's apply this logic to prostate cancer. Only male soldiers can get prostate cancer, so should men be excluded from combat because of this risk? Of course not. If a male soldier is diagnosed, he is simply removed to receive treatment and his unit continues to function just fine. The same would (and does) happen for pregnant soldiers.

"The Dynamic" - Con argues that sexual tension will create a debilitating distraction within male dominated infantry units. The implication here is that men and women cannot possibly work together because of....well, sex and stuff. But this argument has been disproven over and over with each new integration step. People said military culture would be destroyed by integrating black and white soldiers, and then by letting women into West Point, and then by allowing openly gay soldiers, and then by letting women into Ranger School, etc.... And each time, the prediction failed. Most recently, the three female Ranger School grads were subject to over 100 days of the most animalistic living conditions the military can offer - zero privacy, changing in the open, defecating into slit trenches, sleeping outside surrounded by young, aggressive men, etc... what happened? Nothing. No one was raped, no sexual harassment cases developed, and no one complained. Everyone just did their job. Of course, unfortunate instances do occur, but they are the exception rather than the rule and they apply to all demographics. Sometimes gay or minority soldiers are assaulted or harassed. Does this mean all of them should be excluded too? Surely not. The bottom line is that this "distraction" argument sounds like a compelling theory, but it continues to be disproven in practice.

"Passed the Bar, but..." - Con implies that even if a woman does pass the standard, she could only do it once or twice before inevitably being injured. I would simply point once again to CPT Kristen Griest, who not only passed multiple phases of Ranger School back to back, but has now returned (only months later) to compete in the annual Best Ranger Competition - one of the most grueling fitness tests in the Army. How many times does she need to pass the standard before she is accepted?

"Cautionary Tale" - Con implies that even if the standards start high, they inevitably will drop to accommodate women. However, Con has no proof this will happen. The only evidence Con sites is an opinion paper. Once again, Con cannot cite actual proof or practice, only theory.

[1] http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov...
FaustianJustice

Con

Since we have adopted a format, I am inclined to follow, and will rebut each point as suggested by Pro.


1. Equal standards - There is no question that the average female is physically weaker than the average male. The previous policy of gender exclusion was made based on this premise. But what are we to make of above average females? If a woman with exceptional athletic ability and toughness can meet and even exceed the standards currently set for male troops, on what basis should she be denied the job? For example, the current physical standard to be a US Army Ranger involves completing 49 pushups, 59 situps, 6 pullups, and running 5 miles in under 40 minutes. Another US Infantry standard is carrying a 35 pound pack in full combat gear for 12 miles in under 3 hours. There are women who have completed and even exceeded these standards. Notably, 3 women to date have passed the US Army Ranger School, by all accounts outperforming many of their male peers. If these standards, which are currently deemed "good enough" to qualify a man for combat, are not changed, and women prove they can meet those standards (they already have), then it qualifies as discrimination to exclude those women solely for their chromosomes. Bottom line - if women meet the same standard as men, there is no justification for denying them the job.

http://usarmybasic.com...

This is your basic Army Physical Fitness Test. In it, we find immediately that the standard is different among sexes. This, to me, points to a disparity. I am not sure how one can say that a handful of exemplary people are exemplary by given different standards from the onset.

In carrying on to the specific examples given:

http://www.people.com...

The key excerpts from the above article:
• Women were first sent to a special two-week training in January to get them ready for the school, which didn't start until April 20. Once there they were allowed to repeat the program until they passed – while men were held to a strict pass/fail standard.

• Afterward they spent months in a special platoon at Fort Benning getting, among other things, nutritional counseling and full-time training with a Ranger.

• While in the special platoon they were taken out to the land navigation course – a very tough part of the course that is timed – on a regular basis. The men had to see it for the first time when they went to the school.

• Once in the school they were allowed to repeat key parts – like patrols – while special consideration was not given to the men.

This condition seems rather strange to the whole of being able to pass "standards". It is contrary to what is entailed in the resolution.




2. Women already have proven competence in combat - A big driver in this debate was the fact that women have already been exposed to combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, so it made no sense to officially continue excluding them. There are numerous accounts of women performing with courage and valor under fire. Take, for instance, SPC Monica Brown, who was awarded the Silver Star for running through enemy small arms and mortar fire to protect and treat wounded infantrymen [1]. Or SGT Leigh Hester, also awarded the Silver Star, who personally led an assault to clear enemy positions during an ambush in Iraq resulting in 27 enemy KIA [2]. I challenge Con to justify why these Silver Star winners should be excluded from serving in combat, given that they already have proven courageous and competent under fire.

In this particular situation, I am forced to impugn someone’s ability. I have no doubts that our fighting men and women perform admirably, however statistically, such situations are not the norm. Anecdotal, and heroic, however by and large infrequent.

3. Other countries integrate with no problems - many modern armies are already gender integrated, including Canada, Israel, Germany, Australia, and Norway. It seems there are very few, if any, additional problems as a result of their gender integrated ranks, because if there was a noticeable difference in military performance they would cease the policy. In fact, according to National Geographic, "A study on the integration of female combatants in the IDF [Israeli Defense Force] between 2002 and 2005 found that women often exhibit 'superior skills' in discipline, motivation, and shooting abilities, yet still face prejudicial treatment stemming from 'a perceived threat to the historical male combat identity.' [3]. If other modern armies (many of them NATO members) have integrated with success on the basis of equal standards, then there is no reason why the United States should be a special exception.

Canada-
“Meanwhile, Canada’s lack of specific physical requirements for military occupations stands in sharp contrast to the U.S. armed forces, which require combatants to be able to complete a number of specific tasks, some of them grueling, to become an infantryman.
Canadian soldiers repeatedly pointed to low physical standards as a significant problem,” the Marine report said. “Most commanders and soldiers agreed that introducing occupation-specific, operationally relevant combat arms standards would be very helpful to both keep soldiers fit and to demonstrate that women (should they meet the standard) could operate on an equal footing with men.”

IDF-
“Conversely, there are myths about the roles that women play in the Israel Defense Forces, which feminists hail as a place where women can do anything.

The IDF this year decided to retain a ban on women serving in the confined quarters of a tank. Women are restricted to support roles in special operations and are limited to service in only two light infantry border units.

“Integration of female soldiers into the IDF ground forces is far more limited than popularly believed in the U.S.,” the Marine Corps visitors found.

The IDF also does not hold women to the same standards. It practices “gender norming” in physical tests, as opposed to Mr. Carter’s pledge that standards will be the same for both sexes, or “gender neutral.”

IDF women have to be able to carry 30 percent of their body weight, but men must carry 70 percent.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com...


This flies in the face of the underpinnings of Pro’s point: standards. Clearly, they are different, and as evidenced, integration is not 100%. This point becomes self refuting for Pro. Standards are eased for one gender to allow them access to allow these examples to exist, however Pro wants to stand by standards as a means of acceptance.


In the next round I will address the rebuttals of my position, and conclude.
Debate Round No. 3
sengejuri

Pro

== Counter Arguments ==

1. Equal Standards: Con highlights the current Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) standards as being different for men and women. This is true, but the Army is about to change that this summer (http://www.armytimes.com...). In any case, this is irrelevant to my argument. I clearly wrote in Round 2 that I'm talking about women who "can meet and even exceed the standards currently set for male troops." Even if there are two standards, why should women who prove they can meet the male standard be denied? Some women have already proven they can meet male standards, and more will continue to do so in the future. It is ridiculous to argue that there's not a single female in the human species who can do 49 pushups...

In reference to Ranger School, Con cites an article that claims everything was rigged. First, we should be wary that People Magezine is publishing an authorative article on military training. Nonetheless, let's examine Con's points one at a time:

  • Women attended a special two-week training course: Yes, that's true. It's called the Pre-Ranger Course (PRC), and it's an official Army course attended by hundreds of soldiers each year - so it's not some secret "special course" whipped up to help the women. The course is designed to prepare aspiring Ranger candidates, and attendance is relatively routine for anyone shceduled for Ranger School. Last year, 480 soldiers attended PRC between January-April, of whom 138 were women. Of those 138 women, only 20 graduated. That's an attrition rate of 85%. The male PRC attrition rate for the same period was only 58% [1]. Hardly seems to me like women were "allowed to repeat the program until they passed" like Con claims.

  • "they spent months in a special platoon at Ft. Benning getting... full-tim training with a Ranger": Yes, also true. But this is hardly controversial. Take, for instance, Ranger School's largest student population - young infatnry officers. Prior to Ranger School, Infantry officers attend a 16-week school called Infantry Basic Officer Leader Course (IBOLC). IBOLC students receive intense training on infantry tactics, land navigation, and mission planning, all closely supervised by - you guessed it - Ranger qualified trainers [2]. So, if anything, these women were offered what every male infantry officer gets prior to attending Ranger School. This is not special treatment, it's equal treatment.

  • Land navigation training - This I cannot confirm or deny, but let's think about it - is this really a big deal? If the women failed land nav, that simply means they were bad at reading a compass. This says noting of a female's physical strength or sexual dynamics, which are the primary objections to integration. Compass reading is a skill, so even if the women did fail, it means they just need more training on how to use a compass, which is an easy fix. Is Con suggesting that women can't read compasses as well as men?

  • "Once in the school they were allowed to repeat key parts.." - yep, true again. And also again, not unusual. This is called "recycling," and it happens to about 70% of all Ranger students. Yes, 3 female students were offered a "day 1 recycle," which means they were allowed to start the course over after two previous failures. But while this is rare, it's not unprecedented. Two failed male students were also offered a Day 1 recycle on the same occasion, and both declined it [3]. Once again, this is not evidence of special treatment.

I actually took part in helping observe Ranger School training for the Army during the gender integration. I can confirm as an eyewitness that these women absolutely met the same standard as men - they carried the same weight, walked the same distance, and by many accounts performed better than some of their male counterparts on peer evaluation scores. So I asked once again, why should these women be denied from serving in positions for which they are clearly qualified?

2. Women have proven competence in combat - Here, Con acknowledges this point but merely counters that "such situations are not the norm." That might be correct, but it's irrelevant. I'm talking EXACTLY about the excetions to that norm! Why should the rare, exceptional women who prove they can meet the standard and display valor in combat be denied that role if they wish to volunteer for it? At that point it's purely discrimination based on chromosomes, which I maintain qualifies as unjust discrimination.

3. Other countries - Con only rebutted my examples of Canada and Israel. So I guess my remaining examples of Germany, Australia, and Norway stand. Once again, the best Con can do is point out that some standards aren't yet fully equal. But this is irrelevant - just because standards are not equal now, this says nothing about my initial point of women notionally meeting truly equal standards in the future. Let's say Canadian women are soon forced to meet male standards. And then let's say they do it. What happens then? Will these women still be considered unqualified? This is not a mere hypothetical, once again - Con cannot seriously believe there isn't a single female in the human species who can withstand the physical demands of combat.

Con has yet to demonstrate why a woman who can meet and exceed every male physical standard, and can do so repeatedly (as women such as CPT Griest have), should continue to be denied from combat arms.


[1]
http://www.armytimes.com...

[2] http://www.benning.army.mil...

[3] http://www.armytimes.com...

FaustianJustice

Con



Introduction- Con seems to imply that women are not as aggressive or lethal as males, but fails to explain why. I wonder if Con would be willing to explain why SGT Hester was not aggressive enough during the ambush in Iraq?

I am not attempting to “imply” that women are not as aggressive or lethal as males, I am stating that as plain fact, and evidenced it with a study conducted by the military itself. Appealing to common sense might be fallacy, but there is a reason why our various sports competitions are gender segregated; females simply cannot compete against males on an equal field in terms of physical prowess, of which soldiering is a vital part. With this in mind, it would be a hindrance to a squad’s ability to have an artificial standard lowered standard in place simply to allow for gender equality. As was made mention of earlier (and also dropped by Pro), I reiterate for emphasis: “Elaine Donnelly, who directs the Center for Military Readiness and has issued papers arguing against women in direct land combat, said all standards for special operations, Army infantry and the Marines are “very much in jeopardy.”
“Over time, and it wouldn’t be long, the ‘Dempsey rule’ would apply, meaning, ‘If it’s too hard for women, it’s probably too hard,’” she said.


The Obvious - Con says that women should ... soldiers.

In this rebuttal, Pro would liken pregnancy, a 100% legal thing, to drug/alcohol offenses, a 100% illegal thing. To add further absurdity, pregnancy, a thing in which ‘choice’ plays an incredibly active role is likened to prostate cancer, an ailment which strikes its vicims with no choice what so ever. The point, which again seemed to be dropped, was that unplanned pregnancies happen in the military at a higher rate than in civilian counterparts. This would infer that any females that might be required to serve actively in an engagement instead would be retained due to pregnancy, and some one else would be re-allocated to take her place. Were she not to have been eligible for a combat role, this position would not have been altered, and the soldier’s unit not possibly ompromised, which is ultimately the point: retain squad ability and lethality. Clearly, pregnant soldiers do not help that prospect.

"The Dynamic" - Con argues that sexual tension will create a debilitating distraction within male dominated infantry units. The implication here is that men and women cannot possibly work together because of....well, sex and stuff. But ... letting women into Ranger School, etc.... And each time, the prediction failed. …

What a gross mischaracterization. The point was as stated: there is a distraction present given the demographics involved. Debilitating or not hinges on the soldiers themselves, but if the question is “Why shouldn’t we allow women in combat roles”, any distraction that can be averted, like a sexual dynamic that Pro never refuted, should be averted. When coupled with the previous statistic about unplanned pregnancies in the military, this point becomes much more substantial. Pro further institutes a red herring by likening gender to race as a pretext to discrimination in previous eras, however in the opening of this debate concedes immediately that there is a quantifiable physical disparity between genders. If such a disparity between races could so be easily found, this might have been a worthwhile rebuttal.

Passed the Bar, but... - Con implies that even if a woman does pass ...How many times does she need to pass the standard before she is accepted?

Pro may point to any individual preferred for anecdotal evidence. I will quote a previously cited source for actual application of Pro’s resolution: “It found that all-male squads, teams and crews demonstrated better performance on 93 of 134 tasks evaluated (69 percent) than units with women in them. Units comprising all men also were faster than units with women while completing tactical movements in combat situations, especially in units with large “crew-served” weapons like heavy machine guns and mortars, the study found.”

From the same source: “Infantry squads comprising men only also had better accuracy than squads with women in them, with “a notable difference between genders for every individual weapons system” used by infantry rifleman units. They include the M4 carbine, the M27 infantry automatic rifle (IAR) and the M203, a single-shot grenade launcher mounted to rifles, the study found.”

Again, the same source: “The research also found that male Marines who have not received infantry training were still more accurate using firearms than women who have. And in removing wounded troops from the battlefield, there “were notable differences in execution times between all-male and gender-integrated groups,” with the exception being when a single person—”most often a male Marine” — carried someone away, the study found.”

No amount of hand waving alleviates this.

Cautionary Tale - Con implies that even if the standards start high,... Con cannot cite actual proof or practice, only theory.

With regards to Pro’s allegation that I cite only opinion papers and that there is no evidence, I really question what Pro considers evidence. I would consider the Director for the Center of Military Readiness to be an informed expert in her field. And, again, the evidence of a unit’s ability being deteriorated was cited in an article in the previous rounds, as well as this one. I am baffled that Pro would consider a study conducted by the military, and a director of their readiness to be hallmarks of a paucity of evidence.

On the topic of what was presented from one of my sources (People Magazine), Pro attempts to go line by line to refute what was brought to the table, hoping that the diligent reader hasn’t read the article. In it, the consensus is suggested that the women in question had all the advantages that Pro alludes to immediately offered, to the point of being pushed on them. Further more,
Pro drops key parts in the rebuttal that I would like to rejoin:

“Once there they were allowed to repeat the program until they passed – while men were held to a strict pass/fail standard.”

---this was largely panned by Pro.
Con clarifies: “"Once in the school they were allowed to repeat key parts.." - yep, true again.
And also again, not unusual. This is called "recycling," and it happens to about 70% of all Ranger students. Yes, 3 female students were offered a "day 1 recycle,"

-- It happens to 70% of ranger students. ‘Coincidentally’, it happened to 100% of the female Ranger students.

In conclusion, we have seen from studies conducted by the armed forces itself that women in combat roles are a hindrance to combat units. We have heard the synopsis of experts in the
field, that standards are in jeopardy of being lowered to accommodate female applicants, which also degrades the ability of combat units. We have seen the preferential treatment that is being given to encourage such a degradation of standards in the name of equality. We have touched on the male/female dynamic, and how this poses as a viable distraction to combat units. Lastly, in the first round of the debate, we agreed that biologically, women are sub par when compared to men’s physical strength. It is the combination of these various factors that disqualify the resolution from being adopted: women, simply put, should not be permitted in combat roles.


Thank you Pro, and I encourage a vote of Con. Voters, thank you for your time.

Debate Round No. 4
81 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by FaustianJustice 1 week ago
FaustianJustice
How do you propose to get the gun and appropriate ammunition to the location it needs to be fired at?
Posted by Richard_Lyman 1 week ago
Richard_Lyman
Yeah, I mean, I get that women are technically weaker than men, but how much strength do you need to carry a gun and pull the trigger?
Posted by Acrossthespectrum10 2 months ago
Acrossthespectrum10
I think both sides agree that many women are capable of being on the front lines of combat based on the standards set for entry.

But that doesn't mean completion of these standards means combat is the best place for that person.

Con is right. Women are different. They face different daily challenges, and consistently are outmatched in 1v1 against another man.

Further, the atrocities women POW's would suffer would be far worse than what male POW's would, simply because most enemy's would find a female soldier to be an insult to their culture. Frankly, some jobs are for men. Some jobs are for women. The funny thing is in different conversation even females would agree with that.

I am not for putting women down or limiting their potential, but being a soldier isn't something even for most men to do. I am not convinced that just because you CAN do something, means that it is GOOD to do so. This is an example of gender equality groups taking their progressive action beyond what common sense entails.
Posted by sengejuri 2 months ago
sengejuri
Feel free to challenge me anytime
Posted by koziez 2 months ago
koziez
The results of this debate are antithetical to logic. Con clearly displayed that overall troop quality diminishes upon introduction of female soldiers, even if every female soldier introduced were comparable athletically to their male peers. Pro did not adequately refute this claim with his strawman arguments.
Posted by sengejuri 3 months ago
sengejuri
PM me or - even better - challenge me to a debate if you want to keep discussing.
Posted by lawlypants 3 months ago
lawlypants
Understanding what I am saying clearly instead of putting words into my mouth: I said: "There is no female human on the planet that will be able to keep up with their male counterpart physically if they both give it their all". "Their male counterpart" being the male and female with the same size and weight, etc. "Giving it their all" means they both put as much effort and time into being physically fit and acquiring any skills they are going after, mma, soldier, etc. The male body is built differently and functions differently than the female body, period, therefore the male will outperform the female in physical abilities, doesn't matter what female you put on the table, Camille Leblanc, Rhonda Rousey, Becca Swanson...countless males that could outperform them all.

The little cage fight scenario demonstrated a female who strictly studied Ju Jitsu and grappling, going against a male soldier who probably only went through boot camp and was running a couple miles a day and learning how to shoot and clean a gun. Let that soldier spend a couple years honing his skills in ju jitsu and the female won't stand a chance....otherwise let females into the NFL or NBA or let female UFC fighters fight male UFC fighters buddy...you are contradicting yourself.

If being able to pass a physical test is all YOU think is required to let a female go into combat instead of a male, and I still don't want females in combative roles because I am being more realistic, then we disagree, simple.

You want to let women go to war where there essentially are no rules on the battlefield or any real way to enforce those rules, knowing full well that males are physically more capable than females, yet letting women join the NFL, NBA, or fight against their male UFC counterparts in the UFC is a no no and it is suddenly apples and oranges....sorry bud, as far as I am concerned you just contradicted yourself...AND you didn't touch on the morality and ethics of the matter.
Posted by FaustianJustice 3 months ago
FaustianJustice
Thanks for that suggestion, FireF.
Posted by firefury14620 3 months ago
firefury14620
Alright, right now we're having a conversation in the comments of a debate. Private message me if you want to continue the conversation.
Posted by firefury14620 3 months ago
firefury14620
Think about probability though. What's the probability that someone who is fighting in the war in the name of their religion will break one of its ultimate laws? Not very high.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Bennett91 1 year ago
Bennett91
sengejuriFaustianJustice
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: The resolution was clear: "Women should be allowed into combat arms if they meet all standards." this a theoretical/philosophical question. If a woman could perform equal to a man why not let her join? The debate started towards this. Con focused on militaries that use double standards - while this is notable it doesn't answer the question of the exceptional cases. Con could not bring himself to criticize those exceptional cases. Other arguments by Con, as pro pointed out where echos from the past refuted time again, the parts about sex and pregnancy did little for Con. If the standards are too low they can be set higher, but Con failed to argue as to why women should not be allowed to even attempt meeting those standards. Pro argued with examples of real women in combat roles, even though integrated militaries was a stumbling block for him, it was the exceptional cases that was his point and Con could not refute.
Vote Placed by illegalcombat 1 year ago
illegalcombat
sengejuriFaustianJustice
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by Hoppi 1 year ago
Hoppi
sengejuriFaustianJustice
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Con's argument was mostly based on the idea that women are on average weaker than men. But Pro only ever argued that women who could meet existing standards (exceptionally tough women) should be admitted, so the capabilities of average women is irrelevant. Con argued that women could get pregnant. Pro countered that health risk factors apply to all demographics (e.g. prostate cancer) and so people should be judged on individual merit. Con subsequently dropped this point until the final round. Con also argued that admitting women would result in lower standards, but he did not prove that this was an inevitable consequence of admitting women. Therefore Pro's opening argument that individuals should be admitted on merit stands.
Vote Placed by Cooldudebro 1 year ago
Cooldudebro
sengejuriFaustianJustice
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: This debate came down to a few things which I will explain in my RFD. Pro controlled the debate for around two rounds until Con started picking up momentum. Pro did not refute the "Dempsey Rule" point that Con presented with authority and precision. While Con had studies showing that combat effectiveness was brought down by having women in said combat scenarios with men, Pro relied heavily on the "not all women" point. Con broke this point too. However, the topic of this debate is should women serve if they meet all proper standards. Con argued that they could not since the current standards would have to be lowered by the "Dempsey Rule"; and showed the harm that may ensue if we lower our standards. Overall, the points that Con made pertaining to combat effectiveness and standards of the military with his dead on rebuttals of Pro's cases lead to a win on Con's behalf. Good job, guys. Good debate.