The Instigator
Reigon
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
bearski
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Women registering for Selective Service

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/12/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 248 times Debate No: 92651
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

Reigon

Pro

Round 1: Introduction
Round 2: Argument
Round 3: Rebuttal
Round 4: Conclusion

I support requiring women to register for Selective Service.
bearski

Con

Thank you for the opportunity to debate this topic. I will be taking the position in opposition to women registering for Selective Service.
Debate Round No. 1
Reigon

Pro

Thank you for accepting my debate!

Anyway let's get started. I support requiring women to register for Selective Service for many reasons. Previously I was a conservative until the 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 as it seems inevitable.

The draft is unlikely to ever come back and it's practically impossible economic wise 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. If need be we can choose from the highest quality of recruits from both genders instead of only men.

Anyway in my eyes requiring women to register for Selective Service is simply another symbol of equality in the United States of America.
bearski

Con

The propose of having 18 year old boys register for Selective Service is in case of the contingency where the draft would need to be reinstated. The argument the registration requirement should be extended to young women as well.

As a practical matter if both men and women were required to register and did if the contingency were to happen the armed forces one could reasonably assume would end up being roughly divided 50-50 between men and women. Problem with it is it contradicts two things about the gender make up of the current military-- one of which is changeable albeit not necessarily wisely, the other isn't and is also the reason why it isn't wise to change the first.

The first-- currently only 14% of the armed forces consists of women. The second and more important is there are strength requirements which women are much less able to meet than men. The fact is men have a substantial advantage when it comes to upper body strength over women; and for tasks which require upper body strength women are going to be left out. Thus registering women becomes symbolic but little else.

The third reason is propaganda. The draft has always been unpopular even and especially in time of war. It may have been less so in WW II due to the nature of the enemy but it certainly was in the Civil War, WW I and in the Korean and Viet Nam Wars Rape has always been a part of war.

Now lets add those two things together the unpopularity of the draft and rape. Now we have an image of an 18 year old girl-- still a child really being sexually abused by the enemy. Now what is the reaction of the public going to be? One will be to demand more women and children and old men living in enemy territory be mindless and irrationally slaughtered thus handing the enemy a big propaganda victory. The other would be to demand withdrawal from the war also potentially handing the enemy a victory.
Debate Round No. 2
Reigon

Pro

Keep in mind there is a difference between the draft and Selective Service.

"As a practical matter if both men and women were required to register and did if the contingency were to happen the armed forces one could reasonably assume would end up being roughly divided 50-50 between men and women. Problem with it is it contradicts two things about the gender make up of the current military-- one of which is changeable albeit not necessarily wisely, the other isn't and is also the reason why it isn't wise to change the first."

That is not true, people will always volunteer (men more than women in general) so it does not mean there will be a 50-50 gender difference in the Armed Forces. We fought two wars at around the same time in Afghanistan and Iraq, we did not once have to draft anyone as we maintained an all volunteer force. For the draft to be reinstated it would need to be a truly necessary.
Regardless, what is wrong with a 50-50 gender difference in the Armed Forces?

"The first-- currently only 14% of the armed forces consists of women. The second and more important is there are strength requirements which women are much less able to meet than men. The fact is men have a substantial advantage when it comes to upper body strength over women; and for tasks which require upper body strength women are going to be left out. Thus registering women becomes symbolic but little else."

The military is more than just physically fitness, obviously fitness is more important for someone in combat roles than admins. Only a small fraction of the military is actually combat jobs, for an Infantryman to do his job he would need supplies, air support, naval support etc etc etc.
If we went by the physical capabilities of both genders women would not be allowed to serve in the military, which we clearly know is unfair.
Physical abilities is not the only necessity of the Armed Forces, the military needs intelligence from their Airman, Soldiers, Marines etc. It's something people seem to not realize, not anyone can fly planes, operate space systems, work on nukes be a linguist etc etc etc.

So as a result requiring women to register for Selective Service doubles the pool of recruits we can draw from if need be. That means we would not have to lower the quality of recruits drafted as much, would it be better to draft quality men and women than to resort to drafting criminals? As you know criminals do not make for quality recruits and often endanger the lives of their fellow Armed Forces personnel.

"The third reason is propaganda. The draft has always been unpopular even and especially in time of war. It may have been less so in WW II due to the nature of the enemy but it certainly was in the Civil War, WW I and in the Korean and Viet Nam Wars Rape has always been a part of war.
Now lets add those two things together the unpopularity of the draft and rape. Now we have an image of an 18 year old girl-- still a child really being sexually abused by the enemy. Now what is the reaction of the public going to be? One will be to demand more women and children and old men living in enemy territory be mindless and irrationally slaughtered thus handing the enemy a big propaganda victory. The other would be to demand withdrawal from the war also potentially handing the enemy a victory."

Again the draft and Selective Service are not the same thing. The draft is actually ONLY implemented in the US during a time of war. What if we didn't draft men during WWI and II? No one likes the draft, it'd be political suicide for a politician to actually implement the draft unless it was truly necessary.
Yes war is not moral but what about men? They can be raped as well, who said we'll start irrationally slaughtering anyone during a time of war? Have you noticed how far the US had gone to prevent civilian casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq? They often put their own military personnel in danger to prevent civilian casualties. And as you know terrorists tend to hide within the civilian population and use them as human shields.
How would drafting women exactly bring the US to withdraw from a war?

Rape is actually not the epidemic people seem to think it is in the military.
"Here"s what it adds up to: 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. The New York Times may be right to assert that the military has an "entrenched culture of sexual violence," but it would be more accurate to observe that the United States as a whole is characterized by an entrenched culture of sexual violence. Macho traditions notwithstanding, the military appears to have done a better job than most colleges of reducing the sexual assault rate and increasing women"s willingness to report assaults to the authorities."

The military employs millions of people, there are bound to be a few bad apples within the basket. If people are truly against rape they'd fight to decrease rape within the civilian population as the US military has less rape than the untrained civilian population. Keep in mind punishments for breaking the law especially rape is more severe in the military than the civilian judicial system.

Source:
http://foreignpolicy.com...
bearski

Con

You seem to intent on making sure we know the draft and Selective Service are different. That's true. But in the same way a chicken and egg are different. One doesn't exist without the other. No chicken no egg. No egg no chicken.
Selective Service registration exists for the purposes of a draft. The draft when it was in use depended on and relied on Selective Service.

If it is not for the draft then what purpose does Selective Service have? A symbolic ritual for 18 year old children for which half of them aren't allowed to take part. Let girls register as well as boys but why have it at all?

For the more substantive and real part it is about military service. I concur with your assertion the armed services will rely on volunteers for as long as possible but when they have to go to a draft it will be to fill position which the average female lacks the physical strength to handle.
Debate Round No. 3
Reigon

Pro

"You seem to intent on making sure we know the draft and Selective Service are different. That's true. But in the same way a chicken and egg are different. One doesn't exist without the other. No chicken no egg. No egg no chicken.
Selective Service registration exists for the purposes of a draft. The draft when it was in use depended on and relied on Selective Service."

That is a good analogy to an extent. While it is true that there can't be an egg without a chicken it isn't the perfect analogy for Selective Service. Just because Selective Service exists doesn't guarantee a draft will exist. There hasn't been a draft since 1973 and we have also fought two wars simultaneously in the Middle East without needing to reinstate the draft. For the past 43 years all Selective Service does is register men between the ages of 18-25 during those years.

A better analogy would be life insurance. Selective Service is a very cheap life insurance so if sh*t hits the fan and we need to draft people to meet the the defense needs of the Armed Forces. We hope there won't be need to draw from life insurance but we know there is always a chance. Let's say two parents in their early 40s are raising 3 kids all around the age of 5-10. If one of the parent was to suddenly die of hard attack, life insurance is there to cover the cost of living for the remaining parent and kids.

Look at WWI,
"By 1916, it had become clear that any participation by the United States in the conflict in Europe would require a far larger army. While President Wilson at first wished to use only volunteers to supply the troops needed to fight, it soon became clear that this would be impossible. When war was declared, Wilson asked for the army to increase to a force of one million. Indeed, six weeks after war was declared, only 73,000 had volunteered for service. Wilson accepted the recommendation by Secretary of War Newton D. Baker for a draft."

Obviously war and the draft is immoral but often it is necessary, in a perfect world we wouldn't need to have Selective Service but we don't live in a perfect world.

"If it is not for the draft then what purpose does Selective Service have? A symbolic ritual for 18 year old children for which half of them aren't allowed to take part. Let girls register as well as boys but why have it at all?"

I've explained the purpose of Selective Service above, it's actually quite a quick process.

18 year olds are adults not children. How is it a symbolic ritual? It serves a clear cut purpose
""To furnish manpower to the Defense Department during a national emergency, to manage alternative service for men classified as conscientious objectors, and to register, with only a few exceptions, all male U.S. citizens and male immigrants residing in the United States who are ages 18 through 25..."
Wouldn't it be fair to register both men and women? Does registering women actually mean there will be a draft? Of course not but if sh*t hits the fan we will have a larger pool and of recruits to draw from.

"For the more substantive and real part it is about military service."

It is about military service, but does it mean everyone who registers for Selective Service will serve in the military against their will? No, there hasn't been a draft since 1973, again we've fought two wars simultaneously with an all volunteer force.

"I concur with your assertion the armed services will rely on volunteers for as long as possible but when they have to go to a draft it will be to fill position which the average female lacks the physical strength to handle."

Of we truly are not able to meet the needs of the Armed Forces without volunteers it means sh*t has to really hit the fan (aka WWIII.)
The military isn't entirely all about physical capabilities either. It's not easy to fly fighter aircraft, work with nukes, handle the logistics of thousands of highly trained Armed Forces personnel etc etc.
If physical capabilities were truly a hindrance, women wouldn't be allowed to serve in the Armed Forces at all.

With women registering for Selective we approximately doubles potential recruits we can draw from if we are in a state of emergency and we need them to defend the United States (again sh*t has to really hit the fan for that to occur.) We would be able to draft top quality recruits, if we only drafted men we will half those who can qualify to serve in the military. In either case if the demand for recruits were the same we would have to lower the quality of people who serve in the Armed Forces. Obviously a criminal would make a terrible Soldier, Marine, Sailor, Airman, Coast Guardsmen. Those criminals would put their fellow Armed Forces personnel at risk in comparison to recruits who are not criminals. But if we had double the pool of recruits we wouldn't need to resort to criminals.

I may sound inhumane but that is the truth.

Sources:
http://www.historyisaweapon.com...

https://www.sss.gov...
bearski

Con

I agree it is immoral. So the answer then isn't for more to sign up but fewer.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Reigon 5 months ago
Reigon
Just because something is immoral doesn't mean it can be abolished without any repercussions, I've explained in our debate why it's a necessity.

Technically a military can be considered immoral as it's purpose is to serve and protect it's country but let's be honest there isn't always a moral way of protecting a country.

Should we actually eat animals? For us to eat an animal they'd have to die for our consumption. Therefore isn't it immoral to be a carnivore?

If a serial killer tries to kill you wouldn't it be immoral to kill that serial killer? As you'd be taking their life?
Posted by bearski 5 months ago
bearski
No I read and understand it. But if something is immoral you want to work to abolish it not to expand it. On most issues even in people generally agreement (and I agree with you on women registering) there is room for both idealism and pragmatism.
Posted by Reigon 5 months ago
Reigon
Have you ignored everything I've said? I explained why we can't get rid if it.

You do realize if a scenario ever comes which would require us to draft people without Selective Service our draft system will be extremely crippled and even more corrupt. Guess what?
Our Armed Forces personnel will be the first to pay the price of not having Selective Service.
Posted by bearski 5 months ago
bearski
the goal should be to get rid of it
Posted by Reigon 5 months ago
Reigon
"I agree it is immoral. So the answer then isn't for more to sign up but fewer."
I've proven in my answers why it doesn't work like that.
No votes have been placed for this debate.