The Instigator
janetsanders733
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
Jingram994
Con (against)
Losing
12 Points

Women should not be allowed to serve in Infantry

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 6 votes the winner is...
janetsanders733
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/16/2013 Category: News
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,266 times Debate No: 42421
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (15)
Votes (6)

 

janetsanders733

Pro

I will be taking Pro, and argue that women should not serve in combat. My opponent will be taking Con, and argue that women should be allowed to serve in combat.


I would also like to thank Con if he accepts this debate.


Round 1: Acceptance

Round 2: Opening Arguments


Round 3: Rebuttals


Round 4: Conclusions

Jingram994

Con

I thank Pro for offering me the opportunity to take part in this debate.

I accept the premises and format given by Pro, and will be arguing that women should be allowed to serve in combat roles in armed forces. I look forward to a productive debate.
Debate Round No. 1
janetsanders733

Pro

To begin, I am not against women serving in armed
forces. I am just against the idea of women serving on the front-lines of
infantry.

Women technically already serve in combat, but they
don’t serve in infantry, and they don’t bear arms like men, unless for
self-defense.

The purpose of this debate is to show why women
should not serve in infantry.

The
Pentagon on Women serving in Infantry

Back in January of this year, after years of
debating, along with legal obstacles, the Pentagon has made the announcement
that they will lift the ban on women serving in infantry or ground-combat. They
plan on allowing women to serve in infantry around the year 2016.

However, this does not mean that the decision for
women to serve in infantry is already enforced and enacted by the United States
armed forces. The Pentagon is sort-of taking an “Agnostic” position. They are
simply just saying that it is possible for women to serve in infantry during
2016, unless the U.S. Military can justify why certain positions should remain
closed. The issue still remains an open question.

American civilians can possibly override this by
writing to Congress, as to give reasons why women should not serve in infantry.
[1]

Reasons
against Women serving in Infantry:

Down below, I am going to go ahead and list some
reasons as to why women should not be allowed to serve in infantry.

  1. Women
    would have to register for selective service ( a.k.a. the Draft.)-
    Women would have to register for selective
    service if this act became enabled. How would be helping and or enforcing
    women’s rights? In fact I see the
    complete opposite here. Women’s rights would be destroyed, and not supported or
    enforced.[1]
    https://www.youtube.com...
  2. Combat
    is designed for men, not Women-
    Biologically speaking,
    Human anatomy shows that women tend to have a 20-25% lung capacity than men. In their review “The Adaptations to Strength
    Training," Foland and Williams write that women typically have about 60
    percent to 80 percent of the muscle mass of men. Women would have to carry
    50-75 lbs of
    [2]http://hypertextbook.com...
    [3]
    http://www.livestrong.com...
  3. Combat is designed for men, not
    Women (Reason 2)-
    Katie Petronio is a graduate of Bowdoin
    College. She was the captain of the nationally ranked women’s hockey team
    during her college years; after them, she placed fourth in her class in Officer
    Candidates School.

Think about this:

When she entered the military, Petronio
was ardently for women in combat

She could bench almost 150 pounds (very
impressive)

She scored a 292 out of 300 on the
Marine physical fitness test (truly a top-notch athlete)

She was in the top 20% of performers in
Basic Training

We’re dealing here with a
high-performer, an achiever, and a woman in peak shape. So what happened when
she went to Afghanistan? Was she fine? Did she perform as well as she expected?

Sadly, her body essentially
buckled. She became a different person, physically.

This is her quote from the injuries
she suffered from training.

As you can see, Katie
Petronio is an outstanding Female soldier. She seems to rise above the others,
Tier 1. However, Infantry training was just not right for her because she is a
woman, and Combat is designed for men.

First
Conclusion:

As
you can see, there are too many good reasons as to why the U.S. Military should
not allow females to enter Infantry.

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

Sources:

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

[2]http://hypertextbook.com...

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

[4]
http://www.patheos.com...;

Jingram994

Con

I thank my opponent for his considered arguments, and I suppose I'll just jump right in.

"Women would have to register for selective service ( a.k.a. the Draft.)-
Women would have to register for selective service if this act became enabled. How would be helping and or enforcing women"s rights? In fact I see the complete opposite here. Women"s rights would be destroyed, and not supported or enforced.
"

This makes little to no sense, especially as part of an argument concerning rights; the existence of a draft, that involuntarily forces individuals to serve in the armed forces, is a violation of rights in and of itself. Of course women being involuntarily conscripted into the military would be a violation of their rights; it is also a violation of the rights of men who are involuntarily conscripted. This has no impact on the 'validity' of men serving in combat positions, and it has no impact on the 'validity' of women serving in combat positions. It certainly has no bearing on whether or not they should serve in combat positions voluntarily. Which is the issue being debated, if I'm not mistaken; there is a reason volunteer-only militaries are invariably better than conscripted ones, and there is a reason a majority of first world countries no longer have a 'draft'. Involuntary military service has nothing to do with this issue.

"Combat is designed for men, not Women-
Biologically speaking, Human anatomy shows that women tend to have a 20-25% lung capacity than men. In their review "The Adaptations to Strength Training," Foland and Williams write that women typically have about 60 percent to 80 percent of the muscle mass of men. Women would have to carry 50-75 lbs of
"

I believe your comment was cut off. Combat is 'designed' for combat; it is designed for people to kill one another, in order to gain or press some advantage on their opponent, in a military sense. No gender is necessarily 'required' for this. One is only required to be physically fit, healthy and reasonably above average in strength. Modern advances and practices continue to 'lower' this bar, though a rather high level of fitness will always be required. Combat, in itself, is not qualitatively 'different' to any other physically intensive activity. You do not need to be at the total, absolute peak of physical human ability to be considered for a place in a combat role; you need only be 'good enough'. That might sound a tad stupid, but there you have it. If every single potential infantryman had to be essentially a Dionysian demigod to be considered 'fit enough', we would have no infantry; it really is as simple as that. The minimum standards for joining combat positions are objectively quite high, but it is faulty to say that women are incapable of meeting those standards, and denying at least the opportunity to those who have clearly demonstrated that they are physically capable of such a position, purely on the grounds of their gender, is not 'good forward thinking', it's sexism.

"Combat is designed for men, not Women (Reason 2)-
Katie Petronio is a graduate of Bowdoin College. She was the captain of the nationally ranked women"s hockey team during her college years; after them, she placed fourth in her class in Officer Candidates School.

Think about this:
When she entered the military, Petronio was ardently for women in combat
She could bench almost 150 pounds (very impressive)

She scored a 292 out of 300 on the Marine physical fitness test (truly a top-notch athlete)
She was in the top 20% of performers in Basic Training
We"re dealing here with a high-performer, an achiever, and a woman in peak shape. So what happened when she went to Afghanistan? Was she fine? Did she perform as well as she expected?
Sadly, her body essentially buckled. She became a different person, physically.
This is her quote from the injuries she suffered from training.
As you can see, Katie Petronio is an outstanding Female soldier. She seems to rise above the others, Tier 1. However, Infantry training was just not right for her because she is a woman, and Combat is designed for men.
"

One woman, who by all accounts should have been able to endure the ardors of the job, was unable to. Therefore, her entire gender is also unable to, whether or not they meet the same standards and have the 'appearance' of being able to. Surely you can see how this is fallacious? This only qualifies the argument that women should be 'kept out' of combat positions inasmuch as they are not truly physically fit enough to be able to perform such a job. This is the same standard men are held to. It does not qualify a blanket ban on all women, because they are women, regardless of their individual fitness or qualification for such a position. As per the 'Pentagon 2016' statement you have shown, actual standards for joining in a combat role will not be lowered or changed to 'accommodate' women; if such standards are insufficient to ensure that all who pass them are actually fit enough for the job, they should be raised/reworked across the board, for both genders. Undoubtedly there will still be women who are capable of passing the increased standards and performing well in said position.

1) http://ethikapolitika.org...
2) http://www.livescience.com...
3) http://sistersinarms.ca...
4) http://chrishernandezauthor.com...
5) http://www.bloomberg.com...
Debate Round No. 2
janetsanders733

Pro



This makes little to no sense, especially as part of an argument concerning rights; the existence of a draft, that involuntarily forces individuals to serve in the armed forces, is a violation of rights in and of itself. Of course women being involuntarily conscripted into the military would be a violation of their rights; it is also a violation of the rights of men who are involuntarily conscripted. This has no impact on the 'validity' of men serving in combat positions, and it has no impact on the 'validity' of women serving in combat positions. It certainly has no bearing on whether or not they should serve in combat positions voluntarily. Which is the issue being debated, if I'm not mistaken; there is a reason volunteer-only militaries are invariably better than conscripted ones, and there is a reason a majority of first world countries no longer have a 'draft'. Involuntary military service has nothing to do with this issue.”


The point of this argument is not to show that women’s rights are necessarily being violated because of the draft. The point however, is to show that the few women who want this to happen make the majority of women suffer, since they want to have the same career freedom as men do. Women want many rights in this country, but women who push for this are really going to see the consequences of their actions upon the female population in America.



“I believe your comment was cut off. Combat is 'designed' for combat; it is designed for people to kill one another, in order to gain or press some advantage on their opponent, in a military sense. No gender is necessarily 'required' for this. One is only required to be physically fit, healthy and reasonably above average in strength. Modern advances and practices continue to 'lower' this bar, though a rather high level of fitness will always be required. Combat, in itself, is not qualitatively 'different' to any other physically intensive activity. You do not need to be at the total, absolute peak of physical human ability to be considered for a place in a combat role; you need only be 'good enough'. That might sound a tad stupid, but there you have it. If every single potential infantryman had to be essentially a Dionysian demigod to be considered 'fit enough', we would have no infantry; it really is as simple as that. The minimum standards for joining combat positions are objectively quite high, but it is faulty to say that women are incapable of meeting those standards, and denying at least the opportunity to those who have clearly demonstrated that they are physically capable of such a position, purely on the grounds of their gender, is not 'good forward thinking', it's sexism.”


The problem with this statement is that Con sees the standard as somewhat naïve, and just as another “physical” routine that you do. Combat is a physical and mental routine that prepares soldiers for real war. Con looks at the standard as though it were easy because he is looking at it from a male perspective. Most women would not be able to lift and carry a 200-pound man with an additional 30+ pounds of gear for several miles or more every day of infantry training. I think the Human anatomy examples clarify my point.


Privacy is another issue. Our men on the front lines spend weeks with each other in secluded areas, in which they take care of their “business” in front of one another. Whether that be personal hygiene or attending to matters generally taken care of in the bathroom. Would some women be able to adjust? Sure. Would most? I don’t believe so. The society we live in instills the belief that the life of women and children are of greater value than men. Reference nearly every war movie. Veterans come home every day, but continue to struggle with post-traumatic stress disorder. It would not be a smart move to inflict further strain on our brave men by placing them in a situation to witness the death of a woman. Do we really need more body bags for women as we do men? I don’t think so.


“One woman, who by all accounts should have been able to endure the ardors of the job, was unable to. Therefore, her entire gender is also unable to, whether or not they meet the same standards and have the 'appearance' of being able to. Surely you can see how this is fallacious? This only qualifies the argument that women should be 'kept out' of combat positions inasmuch as they are not truly physically fit enough to be able to perform such a job. This is the same standard men are held to. It does not qualify a blanket ban on all women, because they are women, regardless of their individual fitness or qualification for such a position. As per the 'Pentagon 2016' statement you have shown, actual standards for joining in a combat role will not be lowered or changed to 'accommodate' women; if such standards are insufficient to ensure that all who pass them are actually fit enough for the job, they should be raised/reworked across the board, for both genders. Undoubtedly there will still be women who are capable of passing the increased standards and performing well in said position.”


How does Con know that women will do well in the current standard of combat? So far no woman has met the standard, and very few want to. The decision to open ground-combat positions to women is seriously misguided, as evidenced by the fact that the policy decision precedes the feasibility assessment. A senior Defense Department official announced that the goal is "to provide a level, gender-neutral playing field," when the goal should be to have the most effective war-fighting institution possible. Again The physical differences between men and women are obvious, as few women have the strength, speed, or aerobic capacity of even the average man. The British military determined that only 1 in 100 trained female soldiers had the physical capacity to function in infantry and armor units. Then, of course, there's pregnancy, which leaves women three to four times as likely as men to be unable to deploy and leads many, once deployed, to be med-evaced and thereby lost to their units. Cambit units are intensely cooperative and placing a scarce resource (women) within them creates a disruptive competition. Moreover, trust is the foundation of cohesion, and men are disinclined to trust women in dangerous situations, worried that they will lack either the will or the wherewithal to back them up. The rough camaraderie that men engage in to build cohesion will lead to sexual harassment charges by women, so women will be excluded from these important activities. As you can see, there are too many problems with putting women in gender-neutral infantry units. Women will not be up to par when war-time comes calling in. Women would put a setback on the squad’s role or objective in war. This could seriously cost lives for women and men involved in the whole unit because a female soldier is not on the same level as her male-counterpart.


I rest my case. Thanks to Con and anticipate his rebuttal.



Sources:


http://www2.palomar.edu...


http://www.foxnews.com...


Jingram994

Con

"The point of this argument is not to show that women"s rights are necessarily being violated because of the draft. The point however, is to show that the few women who want this to happen make the majority of women suffer, since they want to have the same career freedom as men do. Women want many rights in this country, but women who push for this are really going to see the consequences of their actions upon the female population in America."

Of course, Pro appears to be missing my point; standards for basic rights are not gender dependent, and do not vary according to biology. Women's rights are not qualitatively different to men's rights. Women and men have the same rights; if it is 'okay' for the male population, as a whole, to be put down for possible involuntary military service, it is likewise 'okay' for the female population, as a whole, to be put down for possible involuntary military service. Never mind the fact that it is in neither case genuinely 'okay', and is a violation of rights irregardless of gender or biology; there will undoubtedly be many males who will be hard-pressed, or even unable, to meet and keep up basic physical standards for infantry service; this generally does not exempt them, and applying an entirely different expectation and standard to women really is just a hypocritical double standard, and honestly is sexist and offensive to both genders.

"The problem with this statement is that Con sees the standard as somewhat na"ve, and just as another "physical" routine that you do. Combat is a physical and mental routine that prepares soldiers for real war. Con looks at the standard as though it were easy because he is looking at it from a male perspective. Most women would not be able to lift and carry a 200-pound man with an additional 30+ pounds of gear for several miles or more every day of infantry training. I think the Human anatomy examples clarify my point."

Well, actually, combat' is the actual 'fighting' part of war, not the training, which multiple women have proven they are capable of passing standards for; physically and mentally intensive, yes, but being completely honest unless you are in an elite special forces unit, the standards for being able to participate and be successful in this avenue really are not as high as my opponent is making them out to be. For example, I cannot think of many situations that will call for the lugging around of a 100-kilo man. And approximately 30kg of gear is not that heavy; a fit woman is quite capable of carrying that. Even if it were the case that we could reasonably say that most women are incapable of doing this, this simply does not qualify a blanket ban on all women, because of their gender, and irregardless of their actual physical fitness levels.

"Privacy is another issue. Our men on the front lines spend weeks with each other in secluded areas, in which they take care of their "business" in front of one another. Whether that be personal hygiene or attending to matters generally taken care of in the bathroom. Would some women be able to adjust? Sure. Would most? I don"t believe so. The society we live in instills the belief that the life of women and children are of greater value than men. Reference nearly every war movie. Veterans come home every day, but continue to struggle with post-traumatic stress disorder. It would not be a smart move to inflict further strain on our brave men by placing them in a situation to witness the death of a woman. Do we really need more body bags for women as we do men? I don"t think so."

Again, my opponent appears to be missing the point; Undoubtedly, many men wouldn't like to have to do their business in front of other men; these men very likely will not apply for military service. The women who will not be 'able to adjust' to doing this will not be applying for combat-based military service in the first place. You cannot exclude potentially valuable and productive members of the command chain purely because you don't think they will, in a manner of speaking, 'fit in'; this is sexism, plain and simple. There really isn't any other way to put that; if gender is the only object, then whatever the reasoning behind it the argument is still sexist. And the potential 'greater mental stress' (this is a ridiculous notion, and I really can't see why it was brought up, unless you are trying to point out how outdated these gender-identity notions are with regards to this issue) that some others may experience because they have a female in their unit is simply not relevant; this has not impact on the actual ability of women to capably and proficiently serve in the armed forces, or to be fit enough to engage in combat. A double standard is being applied, and in this case it is purely an appeal to emotion that is being used to 'justify' a blanket ban on females serving in combat positions. What 'our society' tries to tell us with regards to this issue is irrelevant; the lives of females aren't inherently more 'valuable' than the lives of males, and this notion is sexist and offensive to both genders. This simply does not qualify a blanket ban on all women from serving in combat positions; it has nothing at all to do with the validity of the idea.

"So far no woman has met the standard, and very few want to. The decision to open ground-combat positions to women is seriously misguided, as evidenced by the fact that the policy decision precedes the feasibility assessment. A senior Defense Department official announced that the goal is "to provide a level, gender-neutral playing field," when the goal should be to have the most effective war-fighting institution possible. Again The physical differences between men and women are obvious, as few women have the strength, speed, or aerobic capacity of even the average man. The British military determined that only 1 in 100 trained female soldiers had the physical capacity to function in infantry and armor units. Then, of course, there's pregnancy, which leaves women three to four times as likely as men to be unable to deploy and leads many, once deployed, to be med-evaced and thereby lost to their units.... Moreover, trust is the foundation of cohesion, and men are disinclined to trust women in dangerous situations, worried that they will lack either the will or the wherewithal to back them up. The rough camaraderie that men engage in to build cohesion will lead to sexual harassment charges by women, so women will be excluded from these important activities.... Women will not be up to par when war-time comes calling in. Women would put a setback on the squad"s role or objective in war. This could seriously cost lives for women and men involved in the whole unit because a female soldier is not on the same level as her male-counterpart."

This is honestly so easy to resolve I can't understand why it's even an issue; women who do not meet basic physical standards, that have been proven to actually result in effective soldiers, will not be able to enlist in an active combat position. Standards and requirements aren't going to be magically waived because the person trying to get in is a female. As I stated, if current basic standards are not sufficient to ensure that those who meet them are actually fit enough for combat services, then the minimum standards as a whole need to be reworked, so as to ensure that 'minimum standard' is actually 'good enough'.
If only '1 in 100' trained female soldiers have the 'physical capacity' to function in infant/armor units, then 1 in 100 should be employed in those positions. In fact, several women have met those basic standards; they simply have not been accepted into those positions as of yet. The fact that there is 1 out of every 100 that at least theoretically meets requirements for this position proves that a blanket ban is both unfair and sexist, and does not effectively address the issue at all.
And pregnancy? You cannot exclude women from any other job because they might get pregnant, and while I understand that active combat is not like most other jobs, and that being pregnant would indeed preclude combat duty, this standard doesn't change because of that. You can't exclude people from doing something because of something that may occur in the future, and indeed is not even very likely. Unless the woman is pregnant when she applies, or has plans to become pregnant whilst enlisted, this is not and should not be an issue.

As to 'sexual harassment', this is not an issue that would qualify a blanket ban. If the soldiers' form of 'bonding' actually does constitute sexual harassment, then it does so irregardless of gender; they are to blame, and it is them who should be excluded from military service, not the people they are/would be harassing. And if it does not qualify as actual harassment, then this just won't be an issue; how seriously complaints are taken does not vary according to gender.
I see no issue with males 'trusting' females in dangerous situations; if they can't, it is their fault, not the female's. This is not an issue with women actually not being 'on the same level'; it's an issue with men believing that those women aren't. This is an issue that should be sorted out in basic training; getting their 'heads in the game' is half the point of that training.

None of these things qualify a blanket ban on women serving in combat roles; at best, they qualify the argument that women should be held to standards just as stringent as the ones men are held to. Which is the point I am making.

1) http://www.usatoday.com...
2) http://news.nationalgeographic.com.au...
Debate Round No. 3
janetsanders733

Pro

Conclusion:

I think we have good grounds for thinking that Women should not serve in Combat-infantry roles in the Military. Personal Hygiene, Physical capacity(In terms of the Infantry Training and equipment), mental effectiveness(In terms of readiness, not intelligence), human anatomy, cost-effectiveness, and selective service, are all reasons why I don't think women should serve in infantry. There are plenty of effective roles right now in the Military. Some of which involve women in combat, but not on the front-line infantry. Why not keep it where it is?

Also due to the increase of technology, war has now become more of an "air-warfare" with Drones and Advanced Fighter Jets advancing war in a heartbeat. There really is not much of a front-line anymore, so I don't see why women would be necessary as well as any more men. Infantry now-a-days is probably fought more "indirectly" than "directly".

I would like to thank Con for having this pleasant debate with me. Remember to vote fairly.
Jingram994

Con

Conclusion:

I believe I have fairly and effectively rebutted the majority, if not the entirety, of Pro's reasons for the claim that Women should not serve in Combat-infantry roles in the military.

Personal Hygiene: not an issue; possibility of embarrassment and/or 'sexual harassment' does not qualify a blanket ban on women who do wish to serve in this position, no matter how justified such an argument may appear. At best, this particular example qualifies the claim that training for such a position should cover this aspect of warfare.

Physical capacity: Again, this is effectively a non-issue; standards are not arbitrarily being dropped or waived due to the gender of the applicant for such a role in the military. Women who do not meet physical standards for such a position will be unable to be employed in a combat role, and women who are unable to keep this standard as part of their ongoing level of personal fitness will obviously not be able to continue working in such a position if they fall below what is required of them. As I have already stated, even if most women won't be able to meet physical requirements for such a position, it is still arbitrary and unfair to exclude those who do meet the requirements from joining purely due to their gender.

Mental effectiveness: Nobody is ever 'ready' for combat; military training is two-thirds devoted to bringing one out of a civilian mindset and actually preparing them for the harsh realities of warfare and combat, mentally, emotionally and psychologically. This is a basic aspect of what military training actually is, and women will obviously be required to undergo this exact same training in order to actually qualify for such a position. Women are not 'immune' to this training, and as stated any who are unable to meet minimum standards will obviously not be able to be employed in such a position; again, this simply does not qualify a blanket ban on those women who do meet those standards.

Human anatomy: Of course, female anatomy differs from male anatomy; you have not shown how female anatomy precludes their involvement in harsh physical activity, up to and including actual military combat. You have not shown how male anatomy is actually 'suited for combat', as you effectively claimed in the first round, or how potential male ability to engage an enemy or endure physical hardship is inherently greater than potential female ability. One case of a woman 'breaking down' after physical stress does not a good argument for banning females from this particular 'type' of stress make.

Cost effectiveness: While I acknowledge that the cost of training a female sufficiently to be employed in a combat position, against the benefits such a soldier may provide, is higher than that of the average male in the same situation; this does not mean that it is genuinely 'too expensive' to train females and 'get your money's worth' back out of them in service. Indeed, this was only indirectly part of your argument, and unless you can show that training female soldiers for combat is prohibitively expensive for the benefits it provides, which you have not done, then this point is not in your favor.

Selective service: I have repeatedly shown how this point is simply not applicable to the matter at hand, as well as how hypocritical such a double-standard is when discussion of 'rights' is involved, and how the issue is a violation of rights completely irregardless of gender. This point is not in your favor, and never was; there should not be 'selective service' at all, as it is inherently a violation of rights, yet even if there was it would be hypocritical, sexist and offensive to both genders to apply a double standard to women with regards to this issue. You might think applying a double-standard 'protects' women's rights; I don't, and I believe such an argument is reprehensible, and good indicator of lack of understanding of what 'women's rights' actually are; the exact same as 'men's rights'.

As well, your talk of other positions being available, while a good one, does nothing to further your argument. Some women may still very well wish to become involved in active, ground based, face-to-face (or 400 meters apart) combat, and have absolutely no interest whatsoever in any 'other' military positions she may be able to be employed in. Assuming she meets physical standards for such a position, denying her access to it, purely on grounds of her gender and with no regard for her actual physical fitness or suitability for the position, really is nothing more than sexism.

And your 'air/drone-warfare' example, while certainly interesting, again doesn't further your argument; this actually seems to be a blatant contradiction of your earlier arguments and examples of just how grueling combat-jobs are, and how physically fit one must be to be employed in such a role. In fact, this almost seems to hurt your argument more than it helps.
Indeed, this has nothing to do with 'necessary'; a women wants to be employed in a combat position, and meets the physical standards for that position, and will from all appearances perform quite proficiently in such a role. A blanket ban that prevents her from being employed in this role, due to her gender, is again sexist, unfair and nonsensical, given that by meeting the physical standards she has proved that she is the '1 in 100' capable of being an effective infantryman.

I thank Pro for this debate. I of course encourage you all to vote fairly and considerately; with that said, this just wouldn't feel complete without urging readers to Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Jingram994 3 years ago
Jingram994
"Fraternization, or relationships as it is more commonly called, is naturally occurring and more common than any other status compromising event that you can come up with. I'm not sure what you were thinking when you claimed that pregnancy isn't as common as other effects when it is in fact the most recurring status changer and the most common status changer among women..... Your argument is that wellness and capability of soldier to do their mission is not that important in infantry positions or rather not so important that it stops them from being in the infantry even though I say it is and loads of others say it is (as per Pent. reference used by con in the debate"

Of course pregnancy in the general population is common; use a bit of common sense, man. You don't seriously think that women who have trained for years to reach the point where they meet the standards of enlisting in a combat position are going to suddenly throw that away because they suddenly now want a kid instead, do you? Even if they did have sex and become pregnant, there is still always a possibility of them getting an abortion; 'becoming pregnant' is not the issue; staying that way for 9 months is. I am well aware of how pregnancy will affect the ability of the woman to do her job; I am not an idiot, I simply disagree with the conclusions you are drawing from these facts. The point I am making is that this simply *does not* 'justify' a blanket ban on ALL women, because they 'might' get pregnant and choose to stay that way. That is incredibly unfair, irrational, and dare I say it, sexist.

The other point I was making is that fraternization, in a sexual capacity, at the very least among members of the same unit,*should* be heavily frowned upon and punishable, as it is detrimental to unit cohesion and actual ability of all involved to do their job.
Posted by Jingram994 3 years ago
Jingram994
"There isn't. There isn't any bathroom, so the possibility of any bathroom would be appreciated although it would be a bane during combat because it would have to be defended. The further I imagine this side bar theoretical facility with barb wire and machine gun emplacements being set up around this remote defecation station, the more ridiculous it sounds. Let's point out that this facility was created by the imagination that because there are women in combat, there must be a unisex latrine."

The 'unisex bathroom' thing is not a literal idea I have in my head, it is to illustrate a point; women do not 'need' to be excluded from men when it comes to matters like this, and I can't really see how this is enough of an issue to impact the decision to include women either way.

"I said less women are capable, you said less women are capable. yet some how you seem to find fault with me saying it. You seem to be so caught up with your own opinion on this matter, that you can't even hear what you are saying, let alone anyone else. My comments that you are disseminating are points that you already agreed to in the debate and are again agreeing to as real issue. Whether or not you believe these issues are worth denying women into the military or not, is your opinion."

I'm not calling you a sexist for simply bringing these issues up. As myself stated, these issues do deserve to be looked at. I am 'calling you a sexist' because of your ultimate conclusion that these issues mean that women should be absolutely excluded from serving in a combat capacity even if they wish to and meet the requirements to do so. I fully accept that the issues you are bringing up deserve attention; I completely deny that these issues are in any way a meaningful factor in a decision to completely exclude even the possibility of competent, fit and capable women serving in a combat capacity.
Posted by Josh_b 3 years ago
Josh_b
I'll take another comment to specifically address this comment that you made.
"So is injury in general, or any number other conditions that can affect males. Unless the military starts promoting the position that fraternization is explicitly 'okay', this is not as big a deal as you seem to think."

Diverting the attention to males does not negate pregnancy in women. All status affects that would commonly affect males would also affect women, except pregnancy and periods.
In comparing the status effects of males to pregnancy, I think you will find that pregnancy lasts longer than any other effect that is not permanently disqualifying. Broken Bones- 6 weeks, dysentery, colds, pneumonia, bug bites, sun burn- 1-2 weeks.

I don't usually like to argue semantics, but what does "explicitly okay" mean in comparison to the policies that are currently in place? "Explicitly okay" sounds like an oxymoron or a failure to commit to your claim. by explicitly okay are you suggesting that women would need to be directly paired with men in order for fraternization to occur? Fraternization, or relationships as it is more commonly called, is naturally occurring and more common than any other status compromising event that you can come up with. I'm not sure what you were thinking when you claimed that pregnancy isn't as common as other effects when it is in fact the most recurring status changer and the most common status changer among women. By recurring, I mean that the same girl will be pregnant multiple times during her life. But yet again. Your actual refutation is not that pregnancy does not occur, and not that pregnancy does not affect the status of the soldiers who are pregnant. Your argument is that wellness and capability of soldier to do their mission is not that important in infantry positions or rather not so important that it stops them from being in the infantry even though I say it is and loads of others say it is (as per Pent. reference used by con in the debate
Posted by Josh_b 3 years ago
Josh_b
jingram, In the debate, and again in the comments, you agree that these issue are factors that will limit the number of women that are allowed to join the military. Your only rebuttal is deny the importance of the impact.

On the grounds of impact, you don't even deny the impact, but you automatically assume there is some sort of water treatment facility with a tampax machine available to men that is in some way being restricted from women's use. There isn't. There isn't any bathroom, so the possibility of any bathroom would be appreciated although it would be a bane during combat because it would have to be defended. The further I imagine this side bar theoretical facility with barb wire and machine gun emplacements being set up around this remote defecation station, the more ridiculous it sounds. Let's point out that this facility was created by the imagination that because there are women in combat, there must be a unisex latrine.

Furthermore, you do not deny a need for treatment differences, or for cost, you just call me a sexist for bringing them up. On the grounds of sexism, advocating for the physical inequalities of men and women actually makes me an inclusionist.

I said less women are capable, you said less women are capable. yet some how you seem to find fault with me saying it. You seem to be so caught up with your own opinion on this matter, that you can't even hear what you are saying, let alone anyone else. My comments that you are disseminating are points that you already agreed to in the debate and are again agreeing to as real issue. Whether or not you believe these issues are worth denying women into the military or not, is your opinion.
Posted by Jingram994 3 years ago
Jingram994
"..as I rightly..." Was supposed to be followed by 'pointed out'. I ran out of room, sorry.

The point I am making is that those are very weak justifications that simply do not excuse a blanket ban.
Posted by Jingram994 3 years ago
Jingram994
"On the grounds of selective service, it is proven that inclusion of women would be detrimental."
No, it isn't. On the grounds of selective service, it is proven that the inclusion of anyone is technically detrimental, as volunteer-only militaries *always* perform better than ones that include or are composed primarily of conscripts, and is a violation of rights irregardless of gender. This is not the issue being discussed, either.

"On the ground of personal hygiene it is proven that women should be provided separate facilities and individualized treatment."
So what? And that's not necessarily the case. Ever heard of a unisex bathroom? Why would this even be an issue worth discriminating for? That's an incredibly weak and poor justification (read: excuse) at absolute best.

"On the grounds of cost, it is proven that women cost more than men to train."
Many do, yes, and this is indeed something that should be taken into consideration. However, as I rightly pointed out increased cost-for-effectiveness simply does not justify a blanket ban on an entire gender, and thinking like this is explicitly sexist.

"On the grounds of capability, it is proven that less women are capable of completing training."
No, it is proven that less women are capable of completing training; not that women are less capable of completing it. There is a difference. Again, this simply does not justify a blanket ban on an entire gender, as I correctly pointed out. If they meet the standards, they should be able to enlist in the position they qualify for and wish to join.

"On the grounds of long term potential of the soldier, it is proven that pregnancy is a force compromising status that only affects women."
So is injury in general, or any number other conditions that can affect males. Unless the military starts promoting the position that fraternization is explicitly 'okay', this is not as big a deal as you seem to think. Again, this does not justify a blanket ban, as I rightly
Posted by Josh_b 3 years ago
Josh_b
The British military determined that only 1 in 100 trained female soldiers had the physical capacity to function in infantry and armor units.

This statistic alone shows that the inclusion of women as a whole is not worth the cost of the uber minority which is willing and capable, physically, to serve in an infantry position. When including mental capacity, the number of capable individuals becomes much smaller.
Posted by Josh_b 3 years ago
Josh_b
On the grounds of selective service, it is proven that inclusion of women would be detrimental.
On the ground of personal hygiene it is proven that women should be provided separate facilities and individualized treatment.
On the grounds of cost, it is proven that women cost more than men to train.
On the grounds of capability, it is proven that less women are capable of completing training.
On the grounds of long term potential of the soldier, it is proven that pregnancy is a force compromising status that only affects women.
Posted by Josh_b 3 years ago
Josh_b
Complications were clearly given and proven by pro. Con's tried to minimize the importance of the information provided by Pro. Con also admitted that nearly every point provided by pro would cause complications and limitations for women in the infantry. The inclusion of women in the infantry is based on an uber minority that con agrees with in round two during the rejection of Katie Petronio on the grounds of mental fitness beyond just physical fitness.
Posted by Jingram994 3 years ago
Jingram994
Lots of other countries don't have any sorf technological disparity or lack, and still have gender equality in the armed forces up to and including combat roles. Australia, for example.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by zmikecuber 3 years ago
zmikecuber
janetsanders733Jingram994Tied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's counter arguments seemed to concede that allowing women into the military would make problems, but that those problems didn't matter, because disallowing women in the military was still nonetheless sexism. In the end, since Con seemed to admit that allowing women into the military (especially comments like: "they [soldiers who sexually harass] are to blame, and it is them who should be excluded from military service, not the people they are/would be harassing") would cause problems, I'd have to say Pro was more convincing. The resolution also was "Women should not be allowed to serve in Infantry" not "Disallowing women in the military is sexism."
Vote Placed by Josh_b 3 years ago
Josh_b
janetsanders733Jingram994Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: I originally thought BOP would be shared, as con did not provide any original argument, conduct points are awarded to pro. Pro cited known complications of women in combat and post combat and con weakly tried to minimize the importance of the hazards giving me reason award reliable resource points to pro. Both sides confirmed that allowing women in the infantry should not be without restrictions. There are only a select group of women who are even capable of the requirements as set forth by both parties. But convincing argument goes to pro for the claim that Inclusion potentially compromises the integrity of the group based on the requirements for special needs of females being placed above the needs of the group (as per pro's argument.)
Vote Placed by Cooldudebro 3 years ago
Cooldudebro
janetsanders733Jingram994Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Here is my RFD. Conduct goes to pro because I felt he was a little more PC when Con was assertive. He also said thanks more. Spelling and grammar go to pro but just one less error could have sent this into a tie. Sources go to the pro because he has used more. Overall, I believe the Pro's statements correct. He has shown women are not meant for combat like men are. On a recent study, men have more strength, but a women is more agile. I believe it was a good effort by the con, but not good enough.
Vote Placed by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
janetsanders733Jingram994Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gave several reasons why MOST women wouldn't be fit for serving in the infantry. However, as Con pointed out, SOME women ARE fit enough and so it is not fair to exclude them just because of their gender. All of Pro's arguments about psychological impacts are based on sexist claims which I thought died out quite a few decades ago.
Vote Placed by MoralityProfessor 3 years ago
MoralityProfessor
janetsanders733Jingram994Tied
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:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Well fought debate on both sides. S&G was fine, as was conduct. Con argued about the equality of men and women regardless of biological differences, and though men still don't get paid maternity leave, Con ultimately proved that because there are women who can reach that standard, they should have the opportunity to serve in the infantry. Pro's arguments were good, but mostly fell by the wayside when you apply the above standard (those who can do it should be able to). Sources to Pro for showing us which reference applied to which argument, while on Con's side it became confusing reading the sources and trying to figure out what was being sourced. All in all though, a really good debate on both sides.
Vote Placed by Bruinshockeyfan 3 years ago
Bruinshockeyfan
janetsanders733Jingram994Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Cons arguments were more logical. Pro, you cant base this on one female. She was 5'3. There have been female hockey players who are 6 foot and play with guys. Like angela ruggerio and hayley wickenheiser. If women like them were put through training then they may have done better. Con was also more convincing.