The Instigator
coolmikeb
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
delaineyk
Pro (for)
Winning
32 Points

should women be allowed to be in war???

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/3/2011 Category: News
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,213 times Debate No: 16857
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (1)
Votes (6)

 

coolmikeb

Con

There's something instinctive in most men, I think, that makes them protect women - that instinct isn't trained out of them and it doesn't bode well for a war situation. A man would like to jump for a grenade for a female more then a man. We wouldn't improve our US army if women where involved. If women are allowed to go into war, then it would take us a lot of more training to have the men of the military be able to sacrifice a women. Plus, there are many less women in the world then men, which means that we do not need to lose a whole breed of people for war. This is my debate on this topic.

Resources: http://sunnyeside.blogspot.com...
delaineyk

Pro

First of all, I would like to thank the Con for allowing me to participate in this debate.

The question presented is whether women should be allowed to be in war. My opponent has listed the following four points of consideration:

1.That men have more of a natural instinct than do women to protect those weaker than themselves (specifically women).
2.That women would not improve the U.S. army if they were admitted.

3.That men in the U.S. army would have to go through more intense training in order to be able to sacrifice a woman.

4.That there are many less women in the world than men, and that if women are allowed to participate in war, this will result in losing a breed of people.

As a point of clarification, I will assume that my opponent is referring to allowing women to serve in the infantry of the U.S. army, because women are in fact already allowed to, and do, serve in the U.S. army.

I will now counter these points.

1.Though it is true that men are perceived to be more aggressive than women in many settings, this is due to the fact that women have a significantly larger part of their brain devoted to modulating their anger. This results in most women being less outwardly aggressive, meaning that they deal with anger internally. It does not, however, indicate that women are less instinctively inclined not to protect those weaker than them, as my opponent has suggested. On the contrary, the maternal instinct present in women makes them motivated to protect those that they feel are in need, which can include fallen comrades or perhaps civilians.

2.The idea that women would not improve the army fails to take into account the diversity in the strengths and weaknesses of each gender. Whenever a new group is admitted to an organization, it can only strengthen it by presenting new ways of thinking and acting to the said organization. This is true of the infantry as well. Women possess strengths that men as a whole generally do not; for example, women are more collaborative in nature. This may not seem applicable in war, but it actually means that women are very good team members, something which is essential in battle and military operations. Women are also intuitive emotion readers, which means that they can more easily tell what a person is feeling. This is useful in situations like the current conflict in Afghanistan, where much of the threats come from insurgents that are not necessarily easily identifiable. Intuition is essential for soldiers in that environment. These are just two of the strengths which make women invaluable in a war zone. Women have already improved the army and military in the capacities they serve now, and would doubtless continue to do so in a combat environment.

3.It is true that it is difficult for a man to see his comrade and fellow soldier sacrificed in a time of war, and this should not be discounted. However, it is not difficult for army men to see a female soldier injured or killed because she is a woman; it is difficult because she is a colleague, a friend, a person. The same grief and loss is experienced when it is a male soldier. Of course soldiers are in need of training and in some cases therapy to deal with the emotional obstacles that come with serving their country, but that is not reason to deny women the opportunity to serve. No matter who you exclude from the army, the loss of lives is a tragedy; its cause cannot be reduced to gender.

4.I reject the fourth point on the simple basis that it is inaccurate; according to the UN official website, there are 98.6 women for every hundred men. This is not a significant amount at all, so it is not true to claim, as does my opponent, that there are many more men in the world than women. Women in the army would not result in the population dwindling, as I believe my opponent is suggesting, so this point is invalid.

I would now like to offer my own point for consideration:

1.Though I would not dream of accusing my opponent of sexism in this matter, as I do not believe that is his intention, the original cause of not allowing women to serve in combat positions is at its heart, motivated by sexism. I say this because, until relatively recent years, women were treated as property. They were considered to be valuable chattel, for men, that should be preserved, guarded, and protected; they were not valued as individuals nor were they believed capable of taking care of themselves. This resulted in the still prevalent beliefs that men should be the protector of the "weaker sex". However, it has become clear in modern times that women are indeed equal in capability to men. For some reason this widely held belief has failed to translate into the field of the military, but I have no doubt that eventually women will achieve equality in this area as well.

In conclusion, the ban on women in combat positions in the U.S. army is founded in archaic beliefs that will only continue to be proven wrong. There is not sound logic proving that women are less capable than men physically or emotionally of serving in the military, and it seems irrational that they are prohibited from participating in the same way. I believe that this is clear when one considers the points that I have made from an objective standpoint.

Resources:
http://www.un.org...
http://abcnews.go.com...
http://www.hrmreport.com...
Debate Round No. 1
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by poorenglishspeaker 5 years ago
poorenglishspeaker
Thank you for interesting debates.

Women are weak phyisically.
Women have mush less stamina or skelton than men,
When they serve on active combat duty,women tend to be passengers.

If female soldier is captured ,they get abuse.
Even they get oak leaf cluster,their experiance is worse than death.

It needs segregate facilities to organize troops composed of men and women.
They have to carry more materials to front lines and thus costly.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
coolmikebdelaineykTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not expound on his points. He failed to realize that the format of a one-round debate prevents him from addressing Pro's rebuttal to his claims.
Vote Placed by s0m31john 5 years ago
s0m31john
coolmikebdelaineykTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Obvious.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
coolmikebdelaineykTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Another positive instigation by Mike, but easily handled and fully refuted and sourced, 4:2 Pro.
Vote Placed by ilovedebate 5 years ago
ilovedebate
coolmikebdelaineykTied
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: For a one-round debate, con did not really make a point
Vote Placed by Jillianl 5 years ago
Jillianl
coolmikebdelaineykTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Hands down, Pro wins. Clearly.
Vote Placed by bradshaw93 5 years ago
bradshaw93
coolmikebdelaineykTied
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: Con's only source was a blog, plus a very dominating debate by Pro.