The Instigator
Thelastword
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
YYW
Con (against)
Winning
38 Points

Women shouldn't be allowed in the military.

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 8 votes the winner is...
YYW
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/13/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 740 times Debate No: 60402
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (1)
Votes (8)

 

Thelastword

Pro

Women present only an obstacle in the armed forces. There are many cases of rape and unfaithfulness which leads to distractions on the front and trouble when they get home. Not to mention men are built to be the warriors of our species. A 5'6 130 pound women couldn't even come close to a 6'6 230 male. Don't say that they have to pass BMT, The training won't be enough to change the fact of the matter. Also how could they carry said person out if they where wounded? They couldn't. Physically women are built to be smaller. Next is acceptable roles in society. Women aren't supposed to be taking bullets on the front lines, they should be safe in the states. This isn't even a matter of equality or sexism, It's a matter of I'd like to have my squad members around me ready to take me to safety and be able to be the sharpest they can. Oh and this website... http://maketheconnection.net...
YYW

Con

PRO's claim is fundamentally stupid. Women do not present an obstacle in the armed forces, and woman are not a distraction either. Women are fully capable of both serving in combat and non-combat roles.

(1) "Everyone is entitled to a chance." -Leon Panetta

http://www.theguardian.com...

"At a press conference in the Pentagon Defence Secretary Leon Panetta and General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that women had already proved themselves in action on America's battlefields and the move was simply a way of catching up with reality. "Everyone is entitled to a chance," said Panetta, who is retiring form his post this year. At the moment women make up about 14% of the military's 1.4 million active members and more than 280,000 of them have done tours of duty in Iraq, Afghanistan or overseas bases where they helped support the US war effort in those countries. Indeed, some 152 women have been killed in the conflicts. Panetta said the change was vital for the military's future success. "One of my priorities as secretary of defense has been to remove as many barriers as possible for talented and qualified people to be able to serve this country in uniform," Panetta said. "Women are already contributing in unprecedented ways to the mission ... they have become an integral part of our ability to perform our mission.""

(2) This is a move towards equality that modernizes our military.

"Now, supporters of the new policy say, women can be formally recognized for the roles they play on the ground and servicemembers can be assigned to any position they are qualified for."

http://www.usnews.com...

"Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, described women's changing wartime role in a speech in November, saying: "I know what the law says, and I know what it requires. But I'd be hard pressed to say that any woman who serves in Afghanistan today, or who served in Iraq over the last few years, did so without facing the risks of their male counterparts.
"In a war where there is no longer a clear delineation between the front lines ... and the sidelines ... where the war can grab you anywhere, this will be the first generation of veterans where large segments of women returning will have been exposed to some form of combat," Mullen said.
National Organization for Women President Terry O'Neill said she is "thrilled" by the commission's recommendations because the ban is "completely unfair to women who are already risking their lives for their country."
"Since 1990 [NOW] has been calling for fair treatment of women in the military who are in fact at risk but are not getting combat pay or opportunities for promotion," O'Neill said.
The commission also dismissed concerns that allowing women to serve in combat units would negatively impact troop morale, saying there is little evidence to support the theory."

http://www.cnn.com...

All material that is quotes is sourced below.

The resolution is negated.

I win arguments and source points. Also, a case could be made that I win conduct too since PRO is a sexist pig.
Debate Round No. 1
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Mirza 2 years ago
Mirza
The instigator has the burden of proof, as the resolution implies a framework on rather positive statements. (For instance: "Women present only an obstacle in the armed forces.") Pro asserted many times, albeit rarely brought the evidence on along. There are many roles in the military where sheer physical prowess is not the key personal trait. Con points this out in the second part of his argument. Moreover, Con attempts to argue for the status quo, i.e., that the current status of women should be held as opposed to commit to progress from a socio-cultural perspective. No more than an attempt is made. Con has the better of the sources, even though he overused them. Pro did not set a better standard for the debate, however, thus making it right for Con not to spend more of his time on this. Con loses the conduct point to Pro for the "sexist pig" remark in the last round. This sort of debate will almost always have a sexist tone underlying, making a harsh personal attack unnecessary.

In brief - Con had the upper hand in this debate by a significant margin. Argument vote goes to him.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by debatergorl 2 years ago
debatergorl
ThelastwordYYWTied
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:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had a more logical, reliable argument. His sources were much more credible than Pro. I don't know how the conduct would've changed with more rounds, but Pro did have better conduct than Con (who did not respect the other side of the argument). Pro just needed an argument with better back up.
Vote Placed by AlternativeDavid 2 years ago
AlternativeDavid
ThelastwordYYWTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't come close to meeting his burden of proof. Con also used more/better sources.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
ThelastwordYYWTied
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: Nice logic. Women are sometimes raped - ergo all women should stay locked safe inside.
Vote Placed by Theunkown 2 years ago
Theunkown
ThelastwordYYWTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: These one round debates are stupid and pointless, Pro could not make rebuttals, while Con shot down all Pro argument's Pro had sources as well.
Vote Placed by Mirza 2 years ago
Mirza
ThelastwordYYWTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:16 
Reasons for voting decision: The instigator has the burden of proof, as the resolution implies a framework on rather positive statements. (For instance: "Women present only an obstacle in the armed forces.") Pro asserted many times, albeit rarely brought the evidence on along. There are many roles in the military where sheer physical prowess is not the key personal trait. Con points this out in the second part of his argument. Moreover, Con attempts to argue for the status quo, i.e., that the current status of women should be held as opposed to commit to progress from a socio-cultural perspective. No more than an attempt is made. Con has the better of the sources, even though he overused them. Pro did not set a better standard for the debate, however, thus making it right for Con not to spend more of his time on this. Con loses the conduct point to Pro for the "sexist pig" remark in the last round. This sort of debate will almost always have a sexist tone underlying, making a harsh personal attack unnecessary.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
ThelastwordYYWTied
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: pro was destroyed...wait no, obliterated
Vote Placed by YaHey 2 years ago
YaHey
ThelastwordYYWTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Pro's resolution was negated completely. Only Con used sources. I'm giving conduct to Con because Pro was implying rapes in the military are women's fault, because "they are distractions."
Vote Placed by bsh1 2 years ago
bsh1
ThelastwordYYWTied
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: Pro really didn't have a case. When we consider the empiric contributions women have already made, we can see they are an asset, not a detriment, to the armed forces.