The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
1 Points

Women should be able to serve on the front lines in combat positions

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Judge Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/29/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,924 times Debate No: 67615
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (15)
Votes (1)




This is part of the Gauntlet Tournament hosted by TylerGraham95 that I somehow managed to become the challenger in

I will be arguing that women should be able to serve combat roles in the front lines of an armed conflict if they manage to pass the physical tests/requirements to be eligible to fight on the front lines, Con will be arguing against the resolution.

First round acceptance only. 4 rounds, 8,000 characters.


Debate Round No. 1


Arguments for why women should be able to serve on the front lines:

1) Women already hold just about every kind of post/job in the military and make up a substantial portion of the military

Women already make up 13.7 percent of the active Army, 23 percent of the Army Reserve and 15.6 percent of the Army National Guard, and many of them regularly face modern day combat situations. As of 2014, Women serve in 95% of all army occupations in the US Army, with the remaining 5% being closed off to women.

2) They would just be given the OPPORTUNITY to serve on the front lines.

A lot of people against allowing women to serve in the front lines argue that women aren't as strong as men, and therefore they shouldn't be near the front lines since they would be endangering to others around them. However, there isn't some type of quota that the US Army would have to fill or anything if women were allowed to serve on the front lines, there would only be the opportunity for women to meet the same requirements needed to serve on the front lines than men would have to meet. It would be the exact same conditions needed to be met, and if women can meet those same standards that men can meet, then they should be allowed to serve, as they have proven to be good enough to serve on the front lines.

3) Women in other countries are already allowed to serve in front lines, and they haven't had any issues.

Currently, there are several nations that allow women to serve in the front lines, such as Canada, Germany, France, Poland, Australia, Denmark, Israel, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway..... Even NORTH KOREA allows women to serve in front line combat situations.....

^ Also mentioned in the article is that women in militaries that DONT allow them to be on the front lines still allow them in very close support roles, to the point that even as a support, a number of those women do end up seeing combat. Also mentioned is that women in the US are free to serve as fighter pilots and provide air support for battlefield operations.

In other words, we already allow women to serve near the front line and literally OVER the front lines, so whats the problem with allowing them to serve ON the front lines like so many other countries have successfully done?

4) Gays

Hear me out on this one.

In 2011, Obama lifted the 'Dont Ask Dont Tell' policy that forbade openly gay troops from serving in the military. That policy was first put into place as an alternative to the outright ban on homosexuals from being allowed to serve in the military before Dont Ask Dont Tell came around. A lot of people believed that gays shouldnt serve on the front lines for similar reasons that people today dont think women should serve on the front lines; personal issues, attraction to other soldiers, sexual assault, questioning of their toughness... All the same crap.

Since 2011, the public opinion is that gays serving in front-lines scenarios simply isnt an issue. There isnt any major movement out there lobbying congressmen to reinstitute the ban on the grounds that gays just cant or shouldnt serve on the front lines, society has completely made peace with it. If openly gay men have proven themselves to be capable of serving on the front lines despite decades of belief that they couldnt or shouldnt, then women are certainly capable of doing the exact same thing, and should be given the chance to do so.

5) Gangs

Hear me out on this one.

About 1-2% of the U.S. military belongs to gangs, which is 50-100 times the rate in the general population. Gang members armed with military grade weapons surely could pose a dangerous threat to their brothers-in-arms just as much, if not more so, than a woman, since the US military has members from all of the following gangs within their ranks:

Aryan Brotherhood
Hells Angels
Ku Klux Klan
Mexican Mafia
White power Skinheads

Now, I don't need to explain to anyone why having a member of the KKK serving alongside a black man on the front lines could be extremely hazardous.... We can all do the math on that one..... My point is that if the US military is okay with allowing literal gang members belonging to gangs that could have extremely racist and dangerous beliefs into serving on the front lines, than it should also be okay with allowing women to serve on the front lines. Think about it, if you had to pick between the normal woman and the racist gang-member as who you would NOT be more comfortable fighting alongside with in a combat scenario, chances are you arent very trusting of the guy with a swastika tattoo on his arm more than the normal woman..... But if the guy who belongs to the gang is allowed to serve in combat situations, than so should women, since both of them (could) pose an (arguably equal) threat to the people serving alongside them.

I'll end here for now, back to you con.


And Imabench got himself banned.

1) Women already hold just about every kind of post/job in the military and make up a substantial portion of the military

My problem with this argument is that it doesn’t actually say why the Army should allow women in the frontlines. I will summarize Imabench’s argument into the following syllogism.

P1. Women hold just about every kind of post in the Army

P2. ?????

C1. Women should be let into the frontlines.

I consider this logic flawed, and here is another syllogism to highlight why.

P1. Men hold just about every retail or waiting [Waiters] jobs.

P2. ?????

C1. Men should be allowed to be a waiter at Hooters.

The military is in no obligation to let women into the frontlines just because they hold ~95% of the Armies positions, just like why Hooters as no obligation to let men in. If you don’t like Hooters, replace it with Victoria’s Secret. I suppose you could say something along the lines of “They proved they can do it.”. If Imabench were to claim this, he would be repeating himself with his second argument.

2) They would just be given the OPPORTUNITY to serve on the front lines.

P1. Someone who meets the standard requirements can join the army.

P2. That person could be a women

C1. Women deserve the opportunity.

Fair enough, but I have an issue with both premises. I feel like that you don’t understand that you don’t simply join the Army. In [1] it explains that if you are a man and you have no testicles, you will have a hard time joining the army. The same source goes on to say if your penis is amputated, then you are also DQ’d. The Army doesn’t care about just the fitness part, they care about your health, which also reminds me that they don’t like people with a history of suicide attempts to join. P1 is off-base, as there is more things to take into consideration.

You might say women have no issue with this, but I will explain. Women, and only women, can get pregnant and women are more likely to have depression then men.[2]

The idea that women will ever be as good as soldiering as men is absurd. The logic to let women into the army should also apply to people with autism, ex-cons and people who need an inhaler every 3 days. They can lift 100 pounds. They can run 10 miles in 12 minutes. So why bar them? The reason is the same as to why I don’t want women in.

3) Women in other countries are already allowed to serve in front lines, and they haven't had any issues.

I really can’t speak for other countries, but I heard Israel had issues with women. [3]

About 1 in 5 women suffer sexual harassment in Israel’s army, and there is various small issues.

Women in combat is a recent thing, and I believe research is needed if women want to be placed in the front lines.

4) Gays

Of course, women and men have different bodies, and my reasons to bar women are why women can’t, but men can. To assume women would act like gays in some situations is naïve.

5) Gangs

We do not consciously let gang members in the army, even if we did, that doen't mean they would endanger the mission.



[3] Stuart A. Cohen Israel and Its Army: From Cohesion to Confusion, pg. 68

Debate Round No. 2


imabench forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Screw it, lets treat this as a 1 round debate and let people just vote on it as is.


Vote based on the first round?
Debate Round No. 4
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Beginner 2 years ago
If there are any questions about the RFD, just ask.
Posted by Beginner 2 years ago
RFD - part 1
I generally don't like to judge 1 round debates. It leaves me to question whether the points brought up in the last round would have been contended they way I think they should or could have been contended. Thus, my RFD will be based, in part, on how I believe PRO's arguments indirectly contend against those of CON. I do agree with the PRO position, but I'll try to keep my bias out of this debate.
PRO"s first point says that since women are already largely present in the army for some reason, there"s no reason for it not to occupy the last niche that they are denied.
CON responds by questioning whether there is any syllogistic logic to this contention. CON failed to see the syllogism, but I did.
P1: Women are allowed in 95% of the military for some reason
P2: Since some reason exists for women to allow women in 95% of military occupations, that same reason, whatever it is, can probably be applied to women"s inclusion in the last 5%.
C: Women should be included in the last 5%
PRO"s argument is an appeal to some rationale behind past policies. It is a weak syllogism, granted. I think PRO"s case could have been better supported if he could give the reason(s) women have right to 95% of the military.
In any case, CON"s refutation doesn"t hold since. The syllogism exists regardless of whether or not CON sees it.
I"ll have to wait to see how this particular point weighs against CON"s case in favor of the negation.

PRO"s second point is that women are sufficiently capable of serving in the front line, preemptively negating any argument on women"s being impractical frontline units. This point is unsourced, and thus can still be negated by CON. CON however, accepts that women are able enough to serve in the frontline. CON approaches this argument with a summative syllogism of PRO"s argument. CON continues his case explaining why women shouldn"t be in the army.
Posted by Beginner 2 years ago
RFD - part 2
His argument: All women shouldn"t be permitted to join any part of the army, including the frontlines and the other 5% from which they are currently excluded.
CON brings up the point that men whose sex organ is damaged are considered disabled. I don"t see how this correlates with his argument. Is he implying that since women don"t have the protruding sex organs (penis & testicles), they are worse than the men whose protruding sex organs are taken into consideration for army qualification?
I feel CON insufficiently negates the syllogism he himself set up. Specifically, CON"s attempts at negating P1 fell short to me as a reader. He tells me that there are other factors I should consider. Am I supposed to accept that the facts that women are more likely to have depression than men and that women can get pregnant make them inferior to men? Even if I accept that, how does this weigh in terms of military participation or performance?
CON compares women to autists, convicts and people with severe health problems. Under what basis am I supposed to accept this comparison? His statistic on depression or women"s potential pregnancy? Am I supposed to believe that allowing women to serve in the frontlines is the same as allowing pregnant women to serve in the front lines? I am given no reason to think so. CON doesn"t correlate any of his complaints about women to his latter comparison nor does he draw its connection to the resolution at hand.
I"m going to have to reject equating a person"s being statistically more likely to have depression to being an autist, an ex-convict or an asthmatic. I have no reason to believe that they are of the same effect. Even if so, I am given no practical reason to believe that these would present real challenges to women on the front lines.
Posted by Beginner 2 years ago
RFD - part 3
I am only given an emotional appeal of a comparison which I have no rational reason to accept. However, since this is a one round debate, I cannot know whether or not the case against the participation of all women in the military would have been properly refuted. All I know is that the case doesn"t make sense to me, as the reader. Thus I can only give trivial points in favor of CON for the case, and, since the case doesn"t refute P1 of CON"s syllogism, I must also give points to PRO.

PRO"s next point is telling me that women are already permitted to serve in the military without any issues.
The syllogism to this argument is very similar to that of PRO"s first argument.
CON points to the issue of sexual assault of 1 in 5 women in Israel. However, CON admits that the issue is small, thus I give little weight to it in terms of allowing women in the frontlines. Points to PRO.

PRO"s fourth point on Gays attempts to show a double standard of not allowing women on the frontlines. He tells me that the reasoning used to refuse gay men in frontline military positions is the same as those used to refuse women from the same position. PRO tells me that since there is a past case of the anti-women-in-frontline-like rationale being refuted to be false, the current case, when applied to women, is also probably false. In refutation CON notes that Gays are men and that women aren"t men and makes a reference to their anatomical differences.
CON does not address PRO"s point on the fact that the rationale for refusing women has been previously proven incorrect, and expects me to consider that the rationale"s application to gay men is different to its application to women. Since PRO was not able to respond, it"s up to me to weigh whether or not CON"s complaints hold water: I"ve decided that bad reasoning is bad reasoning no matter where it is applied. PRO wins the ticket for this one.
Posted by Beginner 2 years ago
RFD - part 4
PRO"s point on gangs makes an appeal to fear: "Gang members [...] surely could pose a dangerous threat [...] if you had to pick between the normal woman and the racist gang member"
I feel this appeal is weak as any appeal to fear tends to be. How bad are gang members in the front lines? PRO"s conclusion is that since gang members serve in the frontlines and that women are somehow better than gang members, women should be allowed to serve in the frontlines too. I am given no practical reason to believe that women are better than gang members. I only have that appeal to fear very similar to CON"s earlier appeals to PRO"s 2nd argument. Let"s see how CON responds.
CON"s negation says that we don"t consciously permit gang members into the frontlines. I am thus supposed to conclude that there is no double standard of allowing people who are worse than women to engage in frontline combat. Is there really an explicit tenet against gang members serving in the frontlines? I would do the research, but I"m not the one doing the debate. CON"s refutation is simply an assertion against PRO"s source-supported argument.
Even if CON doesn"t effectively refute PRO"s fifth point, the case is nonetheless weak. Thus PRO earns 0.1 points for this case.

In sum
I was forced to weigh a lot of PRO"s arguments against CON"s refutations not knowing whether or not PRO would have made the same considerations if he had not forfeited. For that I apologize, I really dislike judging 1 round debates. CON gets conduct for turning a blind eye to PRO's forfeit. I think CON could have done better if he didn"t spend most of his round on refutations. If CON had instead expanded more on affirming the counter-resolution (i.e. the case against women in general being in the army), I think he would have bettered his odds.
PRO wins the point for arguments
Everything else is tied.

Congratulations imabench!
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Dammit, wrote a RFD before realizing it's judge only... Who are the judges?

---RFD (3/1)---
"If you don"t like Hooters, replace it with Victoria"s Secret." Irrelevant, but great troll line.

Conduct is automatically in favor of con, as much as he almost lowered it to a tie with "The idea that women will ever be as good as soldiering as men is absurd. The logic to let women into the army should also apply to people with autism, ex-cons and people who need an inhaler every 3 days. They can lift 100 pounds. They can run 10 miles in 12 minutes. So why bar them? The reason is the same as to why I don"t want women in."

Sexual harassment was an interesting point, however men suffer it too.

Con's case was pretty much dependent on there shouldn't be a military (implied but not stated), whereas pro put forward a case of fairness for applicants, that arguments about penis disqualifies did not refute. If lack of a penis even should disqualify someone, was not supported, that was merely a weak appeal to authority. Admittedly had pro forfeited another round, this would be a conduct only vote.
Posted by Beginner 2 years ago
Ok, who am I kidding, it's slightly unfair. I'll probably give conduct to Geo (that's what you get for going overboard ^-^) and see how it goes.
Posted by Beginner 2 years ago
For the purposes of fairness, I'm probably going to abide by bench's request and vote based on the first completed rounds.
Posted by Skynet 2 years ago
Wow, how'd he do that? Did he troll too much, or did he finally actually get angry?
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
hmmmm.... I guess ima can't win if he ff two rounds
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Beginner 2 years ago
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.