The Instigator
InVinoVeritas
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
phantom
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points

Women serving in combat

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 4 votes the winner is...
phantom
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/24/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 10,993 times Debate No: 20051
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (4)

 

InVinoVeritas

Con

Should women be allowed to serve in combat roles in the armed forces?

Pro argues that they should be allowed to serve in combat roles in the armed forces. Con argues that they shouldn't.

It is assumed that the burden of proof is shared and equal.

KEY DEFINITIONS:
Women: an adult female person [1]
Serve: To fight or undergo military service for [2]
Combat: Active fighting in a war [3]
Role: a function or part performed especially in a particular operation or process [4]
Armed forces: the combined military, naval, and air forces of a nation [5]

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[4] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[5] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

First round is for acceptance, definitions, and terms of debate.

Thank you.
phantom

Pro

First I would like to wish my opponent and all the viewers a merry Christmas!! I'd also mention I've always liked cons goofy looking avatar.

I look forward to a rigorous debate, and wish my opponent good luck with the opening round.

BOP accepted as shared. I await cons contentions.
Debate Round No. 1
InVinoVeritas

Con

I. Performance of combat duties

Typically, women have 60-80% the muscle mass of men. Women can only perform two-thirds the amount of physical exertion. [1] Moreover, they have far weaker bone structures, which puts their bones more at risk for breakages, which is a real issue when it comes to the physical rigors of combat. [2] It is unreasonable to expect servicewomen to follow the standards of servicemen when it comes to lifting heavy water tanks and supply packs full of necessary supplies. But let's remember soldiers are also expected to carry their wounded comrades during combat struggles, and a vast majority of women in the military would not be able to lift a grown man's full body weight. When it comes to physical capability, only the upper five percent of women are at the level of the male median. [3] Because women do not have equal physical capabilities with men and cannot perform some essential combat duties, they should not be allowed to serve in combat.

II. Pregnancy

A study regarding military personnel was taken by UConn, and it showed that 56% of the women in “mixed gender units” ended up pregnant just prior or during their duty in Desert Storm. It also showed that 46% claimed that the pregnancies, “had a negative impact on unit readiness” and 59% said it had a “negative impact on morale.” [4] The USS Acadia, a military ship during the Gulf War, returned home from service with 1/10 of the women on the ship, 36 crew members, pregnant. [5] Also, women often do not know if they are pregnant or not, which leads to serious health and safety concerns. Do we want women with innocent lives in their wombs fighting against brutal militants abroad? Moreover, imagine how detrimental it is to a troop's morale when a fellow soldier leaves due to something like pregnancy; this would be an inevitable circumstance if women are to be allowed to take on combat roles in the military.

III. Female POW's

Men's views of women plays a major part in the case of whether or not women should be allowed to take on combat roles in the military. First off, female POW's are often sexually abused and violated. Take the case of Major Rhonda Cornum for example. She was held captive for a week in Iraq during the Gulf War. During that time, she was violated both rectally and vaginally. [6] Women go through trials of sexual mistreatment when they are held captive by male enemies, and allowing women to serve in combat puts them at risk for serious consequences such as rape, something which male POW's are typically not subjected to, strictly due to their gender. Of course, all soldiers risk their lives fighting for freedom, but for women, the cost is much too high. Moreover, according to studies, male soldiers would not trust a female soldier to perform tasks that they expect fellow soldiers to perform. Trust is an important aspect of the military and the blatant lack of trust in the male-female soldier relationship is detrimental to the establishment as a whole. [7]

---

No matter what proponents of feminism say, men and women are biologically different. This is not a matter of equal gender rights under the law; this is about nature's well-established differences between the genders. Based on these differences, which have been stated in the aforementioned arguments, women should not be given the right to serve in combat roles in the military.


Thank you.

---

[1] http://www.livestrong.com...
[2] http://www.jacn.org...
[3] http://www.grossmont.edu...
[4] http://www.bible-researcher.com...
[5] http://www.rollcall.com...
[6] http://www.nytimes.com...
[7] http://books.google.com...
phantom

Pro

First of all I would like to say I would not call myself a proponent of feminism, in fact I am conservative, and that you don't need to be in order to advocate my case.


Cons arguments

Performance of combat duties/physical strength



This point holds no water. I will simply refute this by saying that the average physical strength of a woman =/= the average physical strength of a woman in military. It is true that woman on average are less strong then men, but those serving in the military are REQUIRED and trained to be able to carry out the necessary functions of military service. Probably every person in the service has the required physical strength necessary, because the military have to make sure they do. Therefore, females will have to have the required physical strength in order to serve[1][2] and thus I safely conclude my opponents contention has been negated.

Another interesting fact to point out is that women are superior to men in some mental aspects. They are better able to handle anger. [7] I dare say it is useful to have combatants who are able to control this overwhelming mental factor. Let's take a look at some other aspects of women's superiority.[8] Women have some leadership qualities men don't have. Women are relationship builders. Women have a well developed ability to read the emotions of people. Women aren't afraid to speak their mind. Women Encourage organization, and other peoples opinions. [8] All this makes it obvious women bring a good variety to the military.

Conclusion

Everyone has to pass a physical test to join the military. Thus the women who pass the test are proven to have the necessary physical strengths for battle. Female combatants are physically capable. Women also possess some mental attributes men do not.


Pregnancy

First of all I would like to point out, cons source is outdated. It is from February 1993. Military amongst most other things is always improving. It was a problem back then, but does that mean it is a problem now? I will also contend that there are ways for the government to prevent this, and that even if certain methods haven't been put into place, more will until this is a minor problem. However, I do think it is a minor problem now. I think my opponents argument can be dismissed by the fact that now days if a women serving in the military get's pregnant she may face a court marshal. [3] This is a huge deterrent for woman getting pregnant in the military. Getting a court martial can ruin a persons life and even your families life! It's shameful and may cause that person to not be able to get a job in the future. I would also point out it would be very hard to conceal pregnancy and that tests are done to see if you're pregnant. [4]

Facing a court martial you may risk the following; [5]

1. Jail time
2. lost military bonus's - In fact you will have to pay back previous bonuses! This may cost from $10,000 to $80,000 in reenlistment and specialty bonuses.
3. Lost medical insurance
4. Federal Felony Conviction - You will be limited to low level, low paying jobs. This is a very major and may cost you $20,000 to $100,000 a year in lost potential income. Or $3.5 million in lost potential income over your lifetime.
5. Second class citizen - Those convicted of court martial will not be allowed to possess a firearm, vote, hold Government jobs, and in some cases cannot be involved in a labor Union, participate in Federal contracts or programs, immigration and passport limitations and other costs.
6. May be labelled as a sex offender!

Why would anyone in their right mind want to risk all of these just for getting pregnant??




I safely conclude my opponents contention of woman getting pregnant has been dismantled.

Conclusion

The possibility of getting a court martial is a HUGE deterrent to getting pregnant because of the MAJOR consequences that follow. Women will not take this huge risk just to get pregnant and therefore pregnancy is no longer a big issue.



Female POW's


I will answer this contention by saying, women know and are warned of what they will be risking. Joining the military is a very big decision and they will take it seriously. If a woman wants to take these risks, let them. Every person takes bigger risks than this with their life, when joining the military. Risk is necessary. It's their life, we can't prevent them from doing things just because it's our opinion that it's not in their best interests. Women, as well as men, are educated enough of the risks they will undertake before joining the military. They choose to take these risks. Not anyone else.

Conclusion

Women are free to take these risks if they want. It's their choice not ours.



Now on to my own arguments


-My argument is simple. It's a woman's right to serve in the military. Men get to serve. It would be sexist to not let women. Now, it would be poor conduct to call my opponent sexist. I do not hold that view at all. But I think women not being allowed to serve in combat roles is at the least motivated by sexism. Furthermore I think it would advance America as a free nation to allow women to have this right.[6] And not allowing them would bring America backwards.
-If a female has the requirements necessary to serve in the military I see no reason why we should not let them.
-Military provides jobs. Oftentimes men join the military because they can't find any other job. What about woman? Why take away the woman's possibility of getting a military job when she can't get a job anywhere else?
-As shown in my response to my opponents first contention, women have a number of mental capabilities men do not. This certainly makes them useful on the battlefield.

Short summary

-Female combatants have the necessary physical attributes to serve in the military, because if they did not they would be disallowed to serve.
-Women have certain mental capabilities men do not, making them useful in the battlefield for morale and other things.
(The above, as well as other points mentioned, refute my opponents first contention)
-My opponents source for pregnancy is far outdated and holds nothing to what the situation currently is.
-Women now suffer the possibility of a court martial if they get pregnant. Besides being shameful, a court martial can have huge consequences; such as financial, losing citizen rights, job possibilities and more.
(The above, as well as other points mentioned, refute my opponents second contention)
-It is a woman's decision whether she wants to risk the possible abuses of being a female prisoner of war.
-Every person wanting to serve is well informed of what risks he or she is taking. It is not as if they are going unprepared.
-We cannot prevent females from serving just because it is our opinion that it is not in their best interests.
(The above, as well as other points mentioned, refute my opponents third and last contention)
-If a woman meets the required standards it is her right to join the military, and there is no reason why it should not be her right.
-Letting women serve advances America as a free nation, and not letting them have this right moves us backwards.
With all of the above I conclude my opponents case has been thoroughly dismantled, leaving little reason why we should not let women serve.



I thank my opponent for the debate and look forward to tackling him in the next round.


Sources

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

[2] http://www.military.com...

[3] http://archive.truthout.org...

[4] http://pageantgirl31413.hubpages.com...

[5] http://www.ucmjdefense.com...

[6] http://www.un.org...

[7] http://abcnews.go.com...

[8] http://www.hrmreport.com...
Debate Round No. 2
InVinoVeritas

Con

I. Performance of combat duties/physical strength

The army of Great Britain has tried to put women up to the same standards as men when it comes to training... and so far, it has led to the women's health being put in jeopardy, since they are twice as likely to sustain injuries during training than men during training of the same rigor. [1] [2] When women peform the rigorous training that the military expects of men, the women's health is put in jeopardy.

Also, one of the factors that is considered in the scoring of the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) is gender. A woman may get the same score as a man, but this does not mean that she has the same physical strength; she gets an advantage due to her gender. To get a 100% (maximum score) for the push-up test of the APFT, a woman needs 42 push-ups, while a man needs 71. [3] This clearly depicts the disparity between the standards for servicewomen and that of servicemen. If 42 push-ups is adequate, then why do they put the men up to such high standards?

Contrary to the opponent's claims, when it comes to serving in combat, women are not more mentally capable. Women are more prone to emotional stress (and there is an immense amount of stress in combat.) [4] Moreover, women are more likely develop some distressing mental conditions, such as depression.[5] Women are not better leaders than men; they just lead different. [6] Moreover, this point does not benefit the opponent's case.

The physical tests are scored differently based on gender. Women and men, indeed, have different mental attributes, but the opponent has yet to prove that women's presence in the military is beneficial because of this.

II. Pregnancy

Four days after the date of the opponent's third source (which talks about a ban on military pregnancy with strict consequences), it was announced that the military dropped the pregnancy ban. [7] And pregnant servicewomen were consequently not charged. [8]

The opponent's argument, hence, is deemed null. Con's argument still stands.

III. Female POW's

"It's their life, we can't prevent them from doing things just because it's our opinion that it's not in their best interests."

When women are put into a hostage situation and are violently violated, it does not just affect them.

First off, it puts the military into an uncomfortable position. Military officials face the question of "What is more ethical: negotiating with the enemy or letting someone in the military be brutally tortured in a sexual manner?"

Moreover, knowing that women will face such brutal consequences, men would go out of their way to protect them, even when it is blatantly foolish to do so. Due to their views of women, men tend to be overprotective of their female counterparts.

Refutation:

The opponent relates this issue to sexism. There is not a hint of misogyny in any of the claims made in this argument. Women are different from men... and bringing distinct differences to light is not sexism.

Again, as proven before, males and females in the military are judged differently. The standards for males are higher. If females' standards are adequate, then why did the military raise the bar so high for males?

The military should take away a woman's possibility of getting a military job, because, as my argument suggests, women should not serve in combat.

The opponent states differences between men's and women's mental capabilities, but does not show how they specifically benefit the military.

...

In conclusion, women should not serve in combat. The opponent's arguments are null.

[1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
[2] http://news.bbc.co.uk...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
[5] http://psychologyinfo.com...
[6] http://www.psychologytoday.com...
[7] http://articles.cnn.com...
[8] http://www.msnbc.msn.com...
phantom

Pro

My opponent continually advocates for the well-being of female combatants. But I have to ask how it is the least bit his right to prevent someone from doing something she wants to do, knowing the risks, just because it is his opinion that it is not in her best interests. My opponent never really refutes any of my contentions, just tries to outweigh them, and for his first and last, he brings up a rather weak and lacking defense. His argument for pregnancy can be shown to be both outweighed and faulty, as well as lacking in proof.

Performance of combat duties/physical/mental strength


Con first brings up the fact that women are more likely to suffer injury. I find this largely irrelevant, as the possibility of suffering injury is just one of the many risks you take when joining the military.[1] And a minor risk compared to everything else at that. If a woman wants to take this risk there is no reason not to let her. My opponent is not in charge of the well-being of woman combatants.


The military decided that 42 push-ups is enough for a woman. But why would they put men at those standards when men could be even more physically fit? 42 push-ups would be enough for a man, or else they wouldn't make women do that little, but if men can do more, then that they might as well make them. If a man can't do as much as required he obviously hasn't pushed himself enough.

In answer to my proving that woman are more mentally capable in some areas than men, my opponent does not really refute anything. He points out one area where men are superior mentally, and that is stress. Men and women are trained to handle stress,[2][3] and ways such as the use of dogs are used as methods for them to deal with it,[4] so cons point already falls.

Con makes us think that I said women are better leaders when in reality all I said was that they have certain leadership qualities men do not possess.

Furthermore my opponent bluntly states that my point does not benefit my case. I would like to know how?
1. In the last round I showed women were able to handle anger better. Something that can clearly be a overwhelming factor under the heat of battle.
2. I showed that women have certain leadership qualities men don't have. Leadership is a major attribute in battle. It does not matter that men also have some leadership abilities women don't have. The fact that both are different, brings variety. Without women, the military would be lacking in certain leadership qualities.
3. I showed that women are relationship builders and have a well developed ability to read emotions. It would quite obviously raise the morale for troops to have someone like this.
4. I also showed that women aren't afraid to speak their mind, and encourage organization and others opinions. [5][6]



Pregnancy

When we look at my opponents source however we see that "As soon as the military knows a soldier is pregnant, she is immediately sent home."[7] Thus women are punished. Furthermore my opponent has never substantially planted the fact that pregnancy is currently a problem. His one source he showed to do so, was way outdated, and even after my mentioning that, he has not shown that this is now a problem. We also see that this General in my opponents source does not in any way argue that women should not serve in combat, but instead talks about how the problem should be solved, and how valuable women are in combat. If this General who is in command of all these troops does not think there is a currently a problem big enough to send all these troops home, I don't see how our opinion is better than his.

Here is what Cucolo says

I can’t tell you how valuable my female soldiers are,” Cucolo said. “They fly helicopters. They run satellites. They’re mechanics. They’re medics. Some of the best intelligence analysts I have happen to be female. [8]

If women are so valuable according to this general, why would we want them sent home? My opponents argument has been easily negated.

"To date, he said, there have been eight cases of women getting pregnant while deployed under his command."

This is obviously not a huge problem. And it is certainly not nearly enough of a problem to have all these women sent home.

Also my last point for this round outweighs my opponents objections. Sending thousands of women home would have a much much more major impact than sending the few who get pregnant home.




III. Female POW's

Con barely gives a defense. He states that it does not only affect the woman when they are captured. Well I certainly agree; it would affect their family too. But that is the same with any POW, male or female. Con thinks that the military are put into an uncomfortable situation. I don't see how that's even relevant. Why is it so different for women? Men get tortured too. Men even get rapped as well. Not just women. Furthermore con just assumes that all female prisoners of war are brutally rapped and abused. Does he assume everyone that America fights are animals?

Con gives insufficient reasoning for us to believe that men would do specifically blatantly foolish things to save women from capture. Second of all I don't see why anyone would discourage loyalty and protective love, especially in the military. Cons point is unconvincing.

I.) My opponent tries to wave away the issue of sexism, but clearly there are no sound arguments for my opponents case. All have been safely refuted. If America suddenly discharged thousands of women combatants without any major reason evident for doing so, I don't see how that would not look sexist. My opponent also does not address the fact that women serving in the military advances America as a free nation, and taking away those rights brings them backwards.

II.) Women having to do less in the physical test has already been addressed, but the military deem these women capable of fighting. I trust that their decision was logically reasoned. There is no evidence that 42-pushups is too little.

III.) //The military should take away a woman's possibility of getting a military job, because, as my argument suggests, women should not serve in combat//

All my opponent does is try to outweigh this. He does not refute that women have less job possibilities.

IV.) //The opponent states differences between men's and women's mental capabilities, but does not show how they specifically benefit the military//

I thought it was obvious, but I have now showed them in my rebuttal to my opponents first contention.


V.) One last important point, that I did not mention last round. My opponent is advocating for the firing of thousands of women. In other words my opponent thinks that women should not be able to have this job, and thus is arguing that thousands of female combatants should be discharged. This is completely unfair that these women should be allowed to serve, then suddenly discharged right in the middle of their service. Not only is it unfair but can you imagine the huge impact that would have? My opponent argues that women leaving because of pregnancy brings morale down. If he thinks that, it is impossible for him to refute the fact that thousands of women being dismissed would have a much more major negative impact.


[1] http://amrog.hubpages.com...

[2] http://www.au.af.mil...

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

[4] http://www.digtriad.com...

[5] http://abcnews.go.com...

[6] http://www.hrmreport.com...

[7] http://www.msnbc.msn.com...

[8] http://articles.cnn.com...
Debate Round No. 3
InVinoVeritas

Con

Let me affirm to my opponent that this is not as much about the well-being of female combatants as it is about the well-being of the military in its entirety. The downfalls of having women in the military not only put the individual women at risk, but also puts the strength of the military in jeopardy; let us not forget this.

Contrary to the opponent's statements, his past arguments have been effectively refuted.

Furthermore, I believe that I have said all that I need to say, so no more sources will be provided... Only some refutations and clarifications of my stance.

Performance of combat duties/physical/mental strength

These increased risks show that women are not as physically adequate to partake in combat as men. This weakens the military, holistically.

A woman's minimum number of pushups gets her through. If a man can only the minimum number of pushups for women, then he fails. Why is this the case? This is a hole in my opponent's logic. Clearly, there is a double standard, when, in reality, when it comes down to actual combat, there is a single, real standard... the standard that would enable one to survive.

The opponent brings up overgeneralized personality traits that have never been studied in the context of this debate. I don't see how they are valid.

Pregnancy

It is certainly a problem. Why else would they attempt to make a formal rule prohibiting it, then?

Pregnancy directly affects army readiness and effectiveness in a negative way. Because of this prominant issue, women should be barred from joining the military.

Female POW's

Indeed, men do get tortured, but they do not face as much brutality as women do. Enemy combatants, who are oftentimes male, tend to sexually exploit woman captives and physically hurt them more brutally, strictly due to views of the other gender, which they may see as subordinate.

---

Men would foolishly defend female counterparts because due to established stereotypes in modern society, men view women as more emotional and vulnerable people (which is in part true, from an objective standpoint.)

There is a double standard when it comes to physical tests. The minimum bar is different for both genders... The opponent hasn't addressed this as of yet.

Yes, women would have less job possibilities if women were not allowed to work for the military. But this argument is about whether or not they should have such a possibility in the first place! Completely irrelevant.

Again no studies have been shown to indicate how women's personality traits (which are overgeneralized by the opponent) would benefit the military, specifically.

And in regards to the opponent's last point about women being fired: Again, this debate isn't about the effects of taking away such a possibility for women, but rather about whether or not such a possibility should exist in the first place.

---

In conclusion, women should be barred from the military due to the issues of lacking of physical ability, pregnancy, and the risks of being a female POW.

Thank you. Vote Con.




phantom

Pro

As this is the last round I will bring no new arguments or evidence. Mostly I will just offer counter rebuttals, point out all the dropped points, and summarize.



Performance of combat duties/physical/mental strength

I.) My opponent continues to advocate for women's well-being. If women want to take the risk of getting injured let them!!!!!

II.) My opponent does absolutely nothing to show that someone with the ability to do 42 push ups are not fit for combat. Instead he just reverts weak speculations. If women are so weak, why not show a case where a women's strength failed her in combat?

III.) Con brings absolutely no rebuttal to the fact that women are superior to men in certain mental aspects. All he does is spout some nonsense about overgeneralized personality traits and the completely false statement that they have been invalidated during this debate. As a debater I respect my opponent for arguing every point. But I don't think it is possible to refute this.

IV.) As I showed in the last round, contradictory to my opponents belief that women are fairly useless in battle, General Cucolo thinks they are very useful and important. I will reassert my (unaddressed) quote.

I can’t tell you how valuable my female soldiers are,” Cucolo said. “They fly helicopters. They run satellites. They’re mechanics. They’re medics. Some of the best intelligence analysts I have happen to be female.




Pregnancy

At the beginning of this debate I thought this to be quite a good point by my opponent, and the only good point my opponent has really put forth. But I would very much like to stress to the viewers that this has been thoroughly rebutted. My opponent also barely makes any effort in this round to defend it. Please make special note of the following.

I.) As con has stated, he clearly thinks this is a problem because of the fact that women leaving the battle field disrupts readiness and lessons morale. This at first seems convincing, but let us consider something else. My opponent is advocating for the release of THOUSANDS of military women. Let me ask this, what is worse on morale, eight women leaving due to pregnancy, or thousands of women leaving due to a governments decision that they weren't fit to fight?? This point alone so obviously refutes my opponents argument.

II.) My opponent has STILL not established any evidence whatsoever that this is a big problem. His only source was way outdated and even after my pointing that out my opponent has for some reason refrained from offering the slightest bit of proof.

III.) My opponents asks why they would make a rule against it if it wasn't a problem. Well first off, my opponent would have to prove that this is a big problem not simply a problem. This is a minor problem, which is all my opponent has showed. A minor problem that is easily outweighed. We should also remember that the man who made the rule, also claims that his women combatants are very valuable to him. He does not at all advocate my opponents case.

IV.) My opponent has not given a single answer during this debate to the fact that General Cucolo holds his female combatants in high regard. He is, I'm sure, a proponent of women serving in combat. And he, being the General of thousands of troops, has a much more important opinion than mine or my opponents.

V.) My opponent ignores my proof that this is not a very big problem at all. (Only eight pregnancy cases)

VI.) My opponent has ignored my proof that women do get punished if found pregnant.





Female POW's

I.) My opponent has not refuted at all the fact that women have the right to take these risks if she wants too.

II.) My opponent ignores the fact that men can get rapped too.

III.) Con now makes the argument that some people hold a low view on women and thus would treat them badly. Well some countries hold women with more respect for their gender and would make sure to treat them better than they would treat men, so my opponents argument falls.

IV.) I notice my opponent drops the argument that the military would be put into an awkward position.




____________________

I.) My opponent still thinks men being protective of women is a bad thing. He ignores my question as too why we would discourage loyalty and protective love.

II.) Job possibilities is still a point in my favor. Putting cons case into place would remove job possibilities for women. My opponent can't refute that. Not at all irrelevant.

III.) Con again weakly tries to refute my argument that women have some superior mental capabilities. He says no studies have been shown as too how these traits would specifically benefit the military. After showing women's superior mental capabilities, I logically showed how they could benefit the military both tactically and for morale. Con gives no refutation to my arguments. He also, after my refuting it, drops his argument that men are better at handling stress.

IV.) My opponent drops my sexism argument.

V.) Con tries to refute my last point, by saying that this debate is not about the side-effects, of his proposition. I contend that it surely is partly, and would be unfair for it not to be. My point still stands that firing thousands of women is clearly not a viable option.



Why you should vote pro

Women should be allowed to serve in the military because it causes little problems and they are capable enough. It is their right to take risks for the country they love. Physical strength is not a problem because the military make sure they are fit. Women are also superior to men in a number of mental aspects, that the military do not train or test. Pregnancy is easily outweighed with my last point, suffers a lack of evidence, and is proven to be only a small problem. Women choose to take the risk of being a POW. It's up too them, not anyone else. Firing thousands of women just because the government think them unfit to fight is clearly not an option, and lastly letting women being allowed to serve advances America as a free nation, and taking away this right would do the opposite.

Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by CAVSCOUT04 5 years ago
CAVSCOUT04
For those who say women will receive a court martial for being pregnant please state the whole fact. they only face that if they get pregnant while deployed. if you get pregnant in out side of a combat theater you DO NOT face any consequences. feel free to check that out at any military site or you can look directly at the UCMJ page
Posted by phantom 5 years ago
phantom
True. May have kept my mouth shut if he had voted before I posted that first comment.
Posted by InVinoVeritas 5 years ago
InVinoVeritas
And just to clear the air, I am actually completely in support of women being allowed to serve in the military. I just wanted to try out defending the other side.
Posted by InVinoVeritas 5 years ago
InVinoVeritas
Let's be real here. The second voter voted solely based on opinion. That's just the way it is. Oh, well. Haha.
Posted by phantom 5 years ago
phantom
First voter voted 20 minutes after this was over....Don't see how he could have had time to read it.
Posted by phantom 5 years ago
phantom
Damnit. 800 characters over the limit. I hate having to delete.
Posted by Maikuru 5 years ago
Maikuru
I'm not familiar with any valid Con arguments. I look forward to being educated.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Hardcore.Pwnography 5 years ago
Hardcore.Pwnography
InVinoVeritasphantomTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Outdated source, so sources go to Pro. Con's POW point doesn't work because male prisoners can be sexually assaulted and raped too. Pro was right about physical standards and that women in the military are equal in strength to men. Con says detrimental to troop morale when female soldier leaves b/c of maternity leave, but male soldiers can leave too b/c of fraternity leave. Good debate though. This is my first vote! (:
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 5 years ago
ConservativePolitico
InVinoVeritasphantomTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments seem old fashioned and a little degrading... Women have a right to serve in combat if they so wish and Con's trying to discredit this was a little distasteful.
Vote Placed by alkid96 5 years ago
alkid96
InVinoVeritasphantomTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Women Have the same rught as men to serve their country
Vote Placed by esisCOA 5 years ago
esisCOA
InVinoVeritasphantomTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Cons points contained more truthful points while pro sometimes played on truths to make his points. Pros sources were more up to date, and therefore more reliable.